That example is pretty faulty in my opinion, starting with the point where it is assumed that all social interaction require Diplomacy checks.
I didn't see that assumption.
He was explicitly discussing instances where the system comes into play in roleplaying situations. Since, in both systems, the system involves itself in roleplaying situations through skill checks, it seems completely reasonable to me to discuss those situations in terms of skill checks.
Is there some other way that the system influences roleplaying situations beyond skill checks?
It also seems to come into conflict with how I've seen groups react to a skill challenge. I noticed, in that case, they even desire a character be skipped if he doesn't have a good bonus in one of the contributing skills (So he is back out getting the pizza).
This strikes me as being a problem with the DM, if your group really does feel that it's a problem. But, ideally, a skill challenge should have a wide assortment of primary and secondary skills associated with it, so that every character has a way of meaningfully contributing. And, even if they are not trained in any of the skills represented in the challenge, a character can very easily roleplay some kind of contribution to the challenge and then roll an aid check for another character's upcoming check.
If you find your players continually encouraging a single player to essentially remove himself from a challenge, stop giving them a choice. If it's a social challenge, have one of the NPCs turn directly to this character and prompt him for a response. If it's a physical challenge, explain that the character has suddenly found himself in a precarious situation and needs to do something about it. Even if that character's reaction is to simply hold his ground and wait for another character to help him out (with, say, an Aid Another check) he will still be involved in the challenge in a way he was not before.
|
I can see skill challenges being useful in physical tasks. But they don't work for me in a social settings (any edition). The DM "should" have some concept of the NPC (unless a minor throw away NPC) that should, with what the players are saying, guide the outcome. Before someone mentions "but my character has 18 charisma I don't" - a DM should be listening to what the player is trying to say not the exact words and take into account the charisma of the player. In short I don't agree with "random chance with modifiers" dictating the outcome of social interactions. It is the heart of differentiating a roleplaying game from a computer game, IMHO.
I do like skill challenges in 4e for physcial things, really interesting situations can be discribed well.
S.
This strikes me as being a problem with the DM, if your group really does feel that it's a problem. But, ideally, a skill challenge should have a wide assortment of primary and secondary skills associated with it, so that every character has a way of meaningfully contributing. And, even if they are not trained in any of the skills represented in the challenge, a character can very easily roleplay some kind of contribution to the challenge and then roll an aid check for another character's upcoming check.
If you find your players continually encouraging a single player to essentially remove himself from a challenge, stop giving them a choice. If it's a social challenge, have one of the NPCs turn directly to this character and prompt him for a response. If it's a physical challenge, explain that the character has suddenly found himself in a precarious situation and needs to do something about it. Even if that character's reaction is to simply hold his ground and wait for another character to help him out (with, say, an Aid Another check) he will still be involved in the challenge in a way he was not before.
Or a problem with the adventure. But the group didn't think it was a problem, they all just wanted to keep the person ill-suited for a task away from it (much how one keeps fragile characters away from the powerful monsters that can smash them).
While I find your advice is quite good and great for those experiencing the problems, I don't think it really supports the Fighter with Diplomacy example. In my opinion, the situation drastically changes if both encounters have more than one skill as the answer and there is an experienced DM at the table.
The point being that the 4e mechanics don't magically make people start roleplaying (I don't think they impede roleplaying either though) like the situation seemed to portray.
|
I guess for me it's like this: If you really want to play a system whose rules actually support the roleplaying of social interaction: Don't play D&D. There are quite some systems out there which handle this aspect of roleplaying games better by a wide margin (Burning Wheel with its Duel of Wits comes to mind).
This said Diplomacy in 3.5 doesn't do anything good for roleplaying . If you want to roleplay, better houserule the skill (or ignore it completely). So any change can't be for the worse. I doubt that the Skill Challenge system actually encourages roleplaying by itself but for groups who are into social interaction it is without a doubt the superior tool in comparison. Luckily there's nothing easier than to adapt Skill Challenges to 3.5 if you want to use such a tool.
But anyone who stands there and says 4E has no roleplaying? Or discourages it? Or is just a video-game on paper, or is no different from World of Warcraft, or anything along those lines?
Those people are wrong.
This was my initial impression. My view now is that 4th edition reads like a computer game. In play it has proved not much different from any of the dozen other RPGs we've tried over the years.
The style of presentation is fairly distinctive though and, in my view, conveys the impression that 4th edition is a series of decision moments with very limited choices (and that all of those choices are not much different from each other).
This was my initial impression. My view now is that 4th edition reads like a computer game. In play it has proved not much different from any of the dozen other RPGs we've tried over the years.
This is something I actually appreciate. In play I'm looking for entertainment, and in reading I'm looking for ease of use. 4th Edition plays like a fantastic roleplaying game and reads like an extremely useful set of straightforward guides. It suits me perfectly.
This strikes me as being a problem with the DM, if your group really does feel that it's a problem. But, ideally, a skill challenge should have a wide assortment of primary and secondary skills associated with it, so that every character has a way of meaningfully contributing. And, even if they are not trained in any of the skills represented in the challenge, a character can very easily roleplay some kind of contribution to the challenge and then roll an aid check for another character's upcoming check.
If you find your players continually encouraging a single player to essentially remove himself from a challenge, stop giving them a choice. If it's a social challenge, have one of the NPCs turn directly to this character and prompt him for a response. If it's a physical challenge, explain that the character has suddenly found himself in a precarious situation and needs to do something about it. Even if that character's reaction is to simply hold his ground and wait for another character to help him out (with, say, an Aid Another check) he will still be involved in the challenge in a way he was not before.Or a problem with the adventure. But the group didn't think it was a problem, they all just wanted to keep the person ill-suited for a task away from it (much how one keeps fragile characters away from the powerful monsters that can smash them).
While I find your advice is quite good and great for those experiencing the problems, I don't think it really supports the Fighter with Diplomacy example. In my opinion, the situation drastically changes if both encounters have more than one skill as the answer and there is an experienced DM at the table.
The point being that the 4e mechanics don't magically make people start roleplaying (I don't think they impede roleplaying either though) like the situation seemed to portray.
I see what you're saying, and I think you're absolutely correct.
I haven't seen very many official examples were the skill challenge's skill pool was limited to a single option, though (save things like trap-integrated skill challenges that require thievery). Have you seen these cropping up?
I see what you're saying, and I think you're absolutely correct.
I haven't seen very many official examples were the skill challenge's skill pool was limited to a single option, though (save things like trap-integrated skill challenges that require thievery). Have you seen these cropping up?
I can't say I have seen an official skill challenge, even the least varied skill challenge has at least three applicable skills listed (and most have at least double that).
There have been a few events created by the DMs that forced all of the characters to succeed on some single skill check in order to safely progress, but they were more like events than actual full fledged skill challenges.
The examples that come to mind are:
- The party once had to make Endurance checks to determine if they were inflicted with a disease during travel.
- While traveling down river on a raft, we were subjected to rapids and had to make a skill check to hang on to the raft. (either Athletics or Acrobatics, can't recall which)
- There was a series of platforms that ran down a 200 foot tower. A series of Acrobatics checks were made by party members to reduce as the dropped from platform to platform. Although, I'm not entirely sure why the other party members didn't just attempt more rope usage to avoid leaping down.
- There was a encounter that had the other party members making Acrobatics checks as they ran across moving gears. They could fail up to two times and still manage to barely grab on, but all three failures meant falling about 50 feet.
But again, these were just created by the DMs (or by stubborn/bored players) rather than a published adventure.
I see what you're saying, and I think you're absolutely correct.
I haven't seen very many official examples were the skill challenge's skill pool was limited to a single option, though (save things like trap-integrated skill challenges that require thievery). Have you seen these cropping up?I can't say I have seen an official skill challenge, even the least varied skill challenge has at least three applicable skills listed (and most have at least double that).
There have been a few events created by the DMs that forced all of the characters to succeed on some single skill check in order to safely progress, but they were more like events than actual full fledged skill challenges.
The examples that come to mind are:
- The party once had to make Endurance checks to determine if they were inflicted with a disease during travel.
- While traveling down river on a raft, we were subjected to rapids and had to make a skill check to hang on to the raft. (either Athletics or Acrobatics, can't recall which)
- There was a series of platforms that ran down a 200 foot tower. A series of Acrobatics checks were made by party members to reduce as the dropped from platform to platform. Although, I'm not entirely sure why the other party members didn't just attempt more rope usage to avoid leaping down.
- There was a encounter that had the other party members making Acrobatics checks as they ran across moving gears. They could fail up to two times and still manage to barely grab on, but all three failures meant falling about 50 feet.
But again, these were just created by the DMs (or by stubborn/bored players) rather than a published adventure.
That sounds like some awesome gaming.
|
That example is pretty faulty in my opinion, starting with the point where it is assumed that all social interaction require Diplomacy checks. It also seems to come into conflict with how I've seen groups react to a skill challenge. I noticed, in that case, they even desire a character be skipped if he doesn't have a good bonus in one of the contributing skills (So he is back out getting the pizza).
But a skill challenge rarely resolves around a single skill, so he may not be involved in every check, but he is involved in the encounter.
Also, even with diplomacy, the fighters player may propose the following scenario in that scene:
the fighter can't use pretty words on the king, but maybe while the fancy talkers try and impress the king, the fighter dices with the kings guard captain and convinces him to put in a good word (aka the fighter attempts an aid another, and grants the parties bard the +2 on his skill check.)
That example is pretty faulty in my opinion, starting with the point where it is assumed that all social interaction require Diplomacy checks. It also seems to come into conflict with how I've seen groups react to a skill challenge. I noticed, in that case, they even desire a character be skipped if he doesn't have a good bonus in one of the contributing skills (So he is back out getting the pizza).But a skill challenge rarely resolves around a single skill, so he may not be involved in every check, but he is involved in the encounter.
Also, even with diplomacy, the fighters player may propose the following scenario in that scene:
the fighter can't use pretty words on the king, but maybe while the fancy talkers try and impress the king, the fighter dices with the kings guard captain and convinces him to put in a good word (aka the fighter attempts an aid another, and grants the parties bard the +2 on his skill check.)
Yes and that is a good idea, but doing that would improve the presentation of the 3.5 game just as much in my opinion.
|
|
Yes and that is a good idea, but doing that would improve the presentation of the 3.5 game just as much in my opinion.
True, but skill challenges just give a framework for adjudicating the overall success of a number of conjoined skill checks. While they are presented in a book that has 4e written on the cover, GM's have been doing stuff like this for eons, some one just kind of sat down and codified it.
So much of what is in the DMG is stuff veteran GMs have take for granted but have been doing, its what makes the DMG probably one of the best books in the set, because it could practically be titled "here is how you run a role playing game, agnostic of system"
True, but skill challenges just give a framework for adjudicating the overall success of a number of conjoined skill checks. While they are presented in a book that has 4e written on the cover, GM's have been doing stuff like this for eons, some one just kind of sat down and codified it.
So much of what is in the DMG is stuff veteran GMs have take for granted but have been doing, its what makes the DMG probably one of the best books in the set, because it could practically be titled "here is how you run a role playing game, agnostic of system"
Of course. I pretty much agree with that.
That's off the top of my head. I'm still dreaming of the world where the Paizo writers are writing up material for the 4e ruleset. That would be a match made in heaven...You and me both. I'd like nothing more than to be able to buy first rate adventures for 4E. Heaven knows WotC isn't putting them out...
NO they are NOT. All dungeon crawls. So far. I bought the first three for Hero level and the first for Forgotten Realms. On the upside, they all have killer maps that are also reusable. But no one got into the story of Keep on the Shadowfell. "There's your mentor! Should we save him?" "I dunno. I guess." I'd like to see more intrigue and mystery included.
The style of presentation is fairly distinctive though and, in my view, conveys the impression that 4th edition is a series of decision moments with very limited choices (and that all of those choices are not much different from each other).
Gotta disagree the choices aren't varied. I think this could be a DM or PC issue. We suggested our own non-combative courses of action in the last game:
1) convincing the last enemy in a fight to join us and
2) delaying a fight with a superior group of gravediggers that wasn't openly hostile by talking to them).
In both cases, Diplomacy was involved, but also:
1) Religion, in convincing the enemy that his friends had blasphemed by switching gods. A noncharismatic character contributed with his language skill. And,
2) History, in realizing the gravedigger was no archaeologist. Perception, in noticing various things. Some wilderness/survival related skill to identify some animal parts that weren't what they were claimed to be.
We must have used at least 3 separate skills each challenge, and both were spontaneously created by the DM and PCs. We may have gotten unseen bonuses for the words we put in our PCs mouths. We had many choices, avoided two combats, all using the skill challenge rules from the core rules. Voila, a working roleplay mechanic. In fact, the system worked so well, as another poster mentioned, we didn't even realized we'd passed a skill check until the next day!
But anyone who stands there and says 4E has no roleplaying? Or discourages it? Or is just a video-game on paper, or is no different from World of Warcraft, or anything along those lines?
Those people are wrong.
This was my initial impression. My view now is that 4th edition reads like a computer game. In play it has proved not much different from any of the dozen other RPGs we've tried over the years.
The style of presentation is fairly distinctive though and, in my view, conveys the impression that 4th edition is a series of decision moments with very limited choices (and that all of those choices are not much different from each other).
Agree with this view, upon initial read the PHB and DMG does give the wrong( or right if you are into that type of game) impression of a less than roleplaying.
I'd suggest going back to the initial character creation Page 23 and read all the work on deveoping a character motivations, interations, attitudes etc.Wizards of the Coast(or the books writers) put too much work into that section to want to simulate a board\computer game.
The Descriptors in the powers are there so that more adult roleplayers can get an idea what SORT of in game action is taking place when a certain power is used but it's really up to the player to describe his powers in his\her own words and really own the powers style.
Gotta disagree the choices aren't varied. I think this could be a DM or PC issue.
The style of presentation is fairly distinctive though and, in my view, conveys the impression that 4th edition is a series of decision moments with very limited choices (and that all of those choices are not much different from each other).
That's not what I'm saying - I also think the choices are varied.
My point was that my first impression from reading the rules was that the various powers, the skill challenge mechanic, the structure of the various classes etcetera... were all a bunch of cookie cutter solutions to various problems - I was commenting on the presentation of the rules, rather than the actual play of the game. It's why I think so many people criticise 4th edition from a position of ignorance. Reading the rules gives a certain impression as to how it will play - enhanced by your first few battles as you methodically try and learn how it all works. In reality though - there are far more choices, subtle differences, lines of attack to explore and imor (once you shake the idea that "This game is like an improved version of 3.5") just as much richness and depth as any other RPG.
