Rodney Thompson's Live Journal blog (here) has an interesting essay that gives some insight on how non-combat is handled in 4e and how it puts the ball squarely in the corner of the players to get creative with their skills and abilities to solve non-combat problems.
Note: Rodney is also having some fun with a picture from Jason Bulmahn's blog (here)
I highly recommend reading the whole thing, but here are some highlights:
(1)
"I find it particularly interesting that the areas where I feel we've improved the game the most aren't the ones we're showing off. SRM and I had a conversation some weeks back where we both agreed that while I think 4E improves on the player's side of D&D by this much [------], in essence building on much of the foundation laid by the excellent design behind 3E, the improvements on the DM's side of the screen are up by this much [------------------------]. Bad part is, that's harder to show off in neat, pre-packaged articles."
(2)
"Shifting gears away from combat for a while, jediwiker had a discussion on his journal a few days ago about rewarding roleplaying mechanically, and how clearly 4E isn't going to do that (not his assertion, but an assertion that sparked the discussion). In this area, I disagree. We showed off skill challenges in the Escape from Sembia event at D&DXP. Basically, it boiled down to this: the heroes needed to escape from some Sembian guards, prompting a chase sequence. The heroes then had the option of using a variety of skills to escape from the guards, and the encounter was built using the non-combat encounters guidelines in the DMG. Basically, the players could use any skill they liked, so long as they had a good explanation for it, and the encounter gave rules on adjudicating those checks based on the likelihood that the attempt would be feasible. For example, one player I read about used his History skill to remember an old sewer grate from some ancient plans of the city, where he was able to had. Obvious skill choices allowed players to hide, climb on top of buildings, disguise themselves as passers-by, etc. Now, before I get jumped on, yes, these are all things you could do before. However, unless a skill check was specifically called out in the adventure, most adventures leaned back on the hard-coded skill DCs and results in the skills chapter. The difference isn't that you can do these things in 4th Edition, but that the default assumption in 4th Edition is that players should and will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules are designed not only to allow the DM to fairly adjudicate those assumptions but also to reward players for doing so."
(3)
"What 4E's noncombat encounter system does is it lets you make a choice that is consistent with your character AND lets you achieve victory with that (or, at least, some modicum of success). If I'm a fighter with no skills in disuise, bluffing, hiding, or other sneaky bits, my optimal victory condition in escaping the guards is to simply run away, and run away fast (or fight, but we're going to assume that we don't want combat to be the result here). But maybe I'm playing a student of military history, so I make that History check to recognize that in the last siege of the city invading forces used the sewers to get past the walls. Or maybe I'm a street tough who grew up in a rough part of town, so I make a Streetwise check to start a fight between some locals who I know are at odds with one another, providing a distraction so I can escape. Right there I've made a decision that simultaneously allows me to roleplay my character AND gives me the ability to be successful. Unless you believe Andrew Finch's assertion that roleplaying is just making sub-optimal choices (which I don't), victory and roleplaying should not be mutually exclusive."
Enjoy,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
|
Rodney Thompson's Live Journal blog (here) has an interesting essay that gives some insight on how non-combat is handled in 4e and how it puts the ball squarely in the corner of the players to get creative with their skills and abilities to solve non-combat problems.
(2)
"Now, before I get jumped on, yes, these are all things you could do before. However, unless a skill check was specifically called out in the adventure, most adventures leaned back on the hard-coded skill DCs and results in the skills chapter. The difference isn't that you can do these things in 4th Edition, but that the default assumption in 4th Edition is that players should and will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules are designed not only to allow the DM to fairly adjudicate those assumptions but also to reward players for doing so."(3)
"Right there I've made a decision that simultaneously allows me to roleplay my character AND gives me the ability to be successful."
For the quoted portion of (2), I am going to jump on that.
How exactly is that not a problem of the DM rather than the rules?As I understand the 3.5 rules, they too have the default assumption that the players will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules do allow the DM to fairly ajudicate using various skills to do so.
What 3.5 does not, and what I find it rather impossible to believe 4E will do, is provide a detailed breakdown of how to use every possible skill in every possible situation. Without such, why should I not expect someone running a game of 4E to do the exact same falling back on what hard-coded skill checks appear in the 4E rule books?
It did in fact take a considerable effort to convince certain LG players and DMs that just because a Listen or Spot check DC was not included in an adventure it did not mean the encounter granted automatic surprise to whatever creatures were encountered no matter the circumstances. If this is such a problem, then it seems rather strange to expect it to change just because a new edition encourages more open skill use.
For the quoted portion of (3), I just want to know how exactly having a skill, and everyone can use every skill in 4E, somehow constitutes roleplaying a character.
Using a skill is purely a mechanical action. You might just as much say you are roleplaying your fighter by making an attack, roleplaying your cleric or wizard by casting a spell, and roleplaying your rogue by using trap detection.
It might have been roleplaying your character in 3.5 if it involved cross-class skills that were taken simply for flavor rather than for a definite mechanical advantange. (The fallacy that roleplaying means being suboptimal is irrelevant here, as the entire concept of open ended skill use demonstrates that there is no such thing as suboptimal choice of skills.)
This sounds more like an ex post facto role-saying justification - claiming some background element to make a particular use of a skill applicable in the specific circumstance. I see no roleplaying in that. Had the background been long established it might fit, but to come up with such on an ad hoc basis shows no particular commitment to developing a character background for anything other than spontaneous in-game benefits.
I also find it rather "strange" that an appeal would be made to such use of skills given the statements made in Races and Classes about how your game is not much fun if someone used a Profession skill to achieve something relevant in the game.
Also, though Saracenus did not include it, I will include an anecdote in response to the "optimal vs. suboptimal" choice of his leaping halfling.
When I first ran Q1 Queen of the Demonweb Pits, one of the PCs had slippers of spider climbing. When the group confronted Lolth, he moved outside of the anti-magic field, and climbed the wall to get over her to attack. Another PCs had a ring of water walking. He raced out of the anti-magic, and ran across the quicksand surrounding her on her island. When he got there, Lolth cast a harm on him, and was going to follow it next round with an attack that would kill him. (In 1st ed, harm left you with 1-4 hit points. This was also before the -10 hp death's door rule showed up.) The player spider climbing chose to shift over a bit, then drop off the ceiling to cover the player who was down from the harm.
Going from a secure place to shoot arrows to standing in front of an enraged demon queen is quite a bit further from optimal than a halfling paladin charging about without a shield. That did not stop the player from doing it, despite it being back in 1st edition days. The only consideration of "optimal" was that it was in fact the optimal roleplaying choice, raw character combat advantage would be dealt with in other ways.
Skill challenges aren't 'Remember to use Listen', they're 'Improvise cool uses for your skills that aren't necessarily covered by the rules or listed in the adventure'. You could adopt the skill challenge rules to 3e right now, but they're _definitely_ new rules.
|
|
Skill challenges aren't 'Remember to use Listen', they're 'Improvise cool uses for your skills that aren't necessarily covered by the rules or listed in the adventure'. You could adopt the skill challenge rules to 3e right now, but they're _definitely_ new rules.
Not for my campaigns.
I always allowed players to use their skills in relevant ways.I thought everybody did.
Skill challenges aren't 'Remember to use Listen', they're 'Improvise cool uses for your skills that aren't necessarily covered by the rules or listed in the adventure'. You could adopt the skill challenge rules to 3e right now, but they're _definitely_ new rules.Not for my campaigns.
I always allowed players to use their skills in relevant ways.
I thought everybody did.
I've mentioned it in the past, but I'll say it again... just because 4E adopts great house rules you're already using doesn't make it a bad idea to make the good and cool rules part of the base system.
Story XP awards? Cool.
Improvising changes to the world to make a better story? Cool.
Everyone gets to be equally involved in bypassing challenges? Cool.
Etc.
These aren't new concepts, they're old 1e concepts being repackaged and reintroduced as "innovations". Those of us who played 1e and 2e for any significant length of time 'ported them into 3e and 3.5e, but, since they're not in the 3.5e rulebook and since so many 3.5e players depend wholly upon those books for their understanding of the game they seem like house rules.
Such silliness is beyond me. Good night.
|
|
[I've mentioned it in the past, but I'll say it again... just because 4E adopts great house rules you're already using doesn't make it a bad idea to make the good and cool rules part of the base system.
Story XP awards? Cool.
Improvising changes to the world to make a better story? Cool.
Everyone gets to be equally involved in bypassing challenges? Cool.
Etc.
And I have mentioned it in the past and will say it again:
I do not consider those house rules.
I consider those natural elements of being a DM and using the rules available as written.
As such, it is not a question of whether it is bad idea to make them part of the base system, but that I see nothing innovative here as they already are part of the base system.
These aren't new concepts, they're old 1e concepts being repackaged and reintroduced as "innovations". Those of us who played 1e and 2e for any significant length of time 'ported them into 3e and 3.5e, but, since they're not in the 3.5e rulebook and since so many 3.5e players depend wholly upon those books for their understanding of the game they seem like house rules.
Such silliness is beyond me. Good night.
I own those books... and the skill challenge concept is _really_ not in them. It _is_ in a number of Indy games that have been released. I'm thinking people don't actually understand what the skill challenge allows you to do... maybe Rodney didn't explain it well (or people didn't read what he wrote). Eh, whatever, it's the internet, I think I'm not going to worry what other people think on it...
Now, I do think something I said may have been misconstrued so I'll try to fix that. I mentioned story xp awards, as a tangent on my 'house rules as core rules' concept, not anything to do with the rest of the discussion.
Lots of people do story xp awards. Doesn't mean it was the rule. It was an extremely common house rule, and hence why I mentioned. It's a good house rule to make an actual rule.
I mean, the _rules_ for XP in some previous editions were that you got 1 XP per gold piece, or that you got XP every time you cast a spell at all, or that you got XP for completely meaningless combats against things 20 levels below you... I remember getting a smidgin of XP for killing a dragon, and the XP rolling in buckets when we got its horde. Now that was odd :)
|
|
I own those books... and the skill challenge concept is _really_ not in them. It _is_ in a number of Indy games that have been released. I'm thinking people don't actually understand what the skill challenge allows you to do... maybe Rodney didn't explain it well (or people didn't read what he wrote). Eh, whatever, it's the internet, I think I'm not going to worry what other people think on it...
I own the 3.5 PHB, and the skill challenge concept really is in them.
There are skills that work on opposed rolls.There are skills that work on static DCs.
There are skills that work by providing information based on static DCs.
There are rules suggesting how to use the skills.
It may not be called a "skill challenge system", or contain some of the finer details of whatever is being included in 4E, but the basic concept of using skills to gain information and achieve success at tasks is more certainly in the 3.5 core rules.
Now, I do think something I said may have been misconstrued so I'll try to fix that. I mentioned story xp awards, as a tangent on my 'house rules as core rules' concept, not anything to do with the rest of the discussion.
Lots of people do story xp awards. Doesn't mean it was the rule. It was an extremely common house rule, and hence why I mentioned. It's a good house rule to make an actual rule.
Story xp awards are in the DMG 3.5. They are not even presented as an optional rule as they were in the DMG 3, though they are suggested as something only for "experienced" DMs.
It was not a house rule, it was part of the standard rules.And yes, I agree, it is a good rule to keep as a standard rule, as it was in 3.5, rather than presented as a variant as it was in the 3E.
I mean, the _rules_ for XP in some previous editions were that you got 1 XP per gold piece, or that you got XP every time you cast a spell at all, or that you got XP for completely meaningless combats against things 20 levels below you... I remember getting a smidgin of XP for killing a dragon, and the XP rolling in buckets when we got its horde. Now that was odd :)
That is because it was supposed to be a challenge to cart the horde off in one simple pickup. Check those encumberance rules and carrying capacities back in 1st ed. You either need multiple portable holes and bags of holding to abscond with a dragon hoard, or you just snatch the gems, jewelry, magic, and platinum, and the rest "grows legs" while you are travelling to and from your base to get wagons to pick the rest of it up.
Also consider basic support costs, as well as training costs, in 1st ed, and getting xp for getting that much weight of gold is quite reasonable.However, to go to the source:
"Gaining experience points through the acquisition of gold pieces and by slaying monsters might be questioned by some individuals as nonrepresentative of how an actual character would become more able in his or her class. Admittedly, this is so, if the existence of spell casting clerics, druids, magic-users, and illusionists is (unrealistically) granted; likewise, dwarven superheroes, paladins, elven thieves, half-orc assassins, and the like might gain real experience from altogether different sorts of activities.
This is a game, however, a fantasy game, and suspension of disbelief is
required. If one can accept the existence of 12' tall giants, why not the rewarding of experience points for treasure gained? While praying and religious-oriented acts are more properly the activities for which a cleric would gain experience points, this is not the stuff of exciting swords & sorcery adventure. So too, fighters need physical training and weapons practice, magic-users long hours of study in tomes of arcane lore, and thieves the repetition of their manual skills and discernitory prowess; but none of this is suitable to gaming. It is, therefore, discarded and subsumed as taking place on a character's "off hours"."
Once you accept the abstract and fantasy nature of the game as a whole, as well as understanding what makes a fun game, the difference between xp for killing, looting, or meeting story goals becomes irrelevant. All that matters is picking a system that focuses on what is fun.
I own the 3.5 PHB, and the skill challenge concept really is in them.
There are skills that work on opposed rolls.
There are skills that work on static DCs.
There are skills that work by providing information based on static DCs.
There are rules suggesting how to use the skills.
This has nothing to do with the skill challenge system that I was discussing - it is the basic skill system, yes.
Actually, I think that whether or not the "skill challenge" rule was in before is not that relevant. The answer depends on how you define "skill challenge".
If you think that "skill challenge" is about letting players come up with clever ways to use their skills to overcome an obstacle, then it clearly already was in before.
What I think is novel though - and, at this point, I'm not entirely sure whether I like or not - is that 4E "skill challenges" seem to be a license for players to modify the world.
Here's what I mean:
In previous editions, you would often get a list of possible skills and associated DC to overcome a situation. For example, to get free of binding ropes, you could either use Escape Artist DC x or Tumble DC y (was it Tumble? I can't remember - well, that still gets the point across I hope). Another example: to get the bandits'HQ location from the prisoner, you could either use Diplomacy DC x or Bluff DC y or Intimidate DC z. Those lists of skills and associated DC also included an explanation as to how the skills were used and what a successful check would achieve.
The main difference I see in 4E "skill challenges" is that those parts (how skills are used and what a success achieves) is now left to the *players* to determine. In the "flee the city" example, the *player* can come up with the idea to make a Knowledge/history check to remember a secret passage in the sewers; or choose to use an Acrobacy check to succeed in fleeing the city by the roofs.
That's all fine but ... what if the DM had in mind that there were no underground sewers in this city? Or what if the DM had in mind that the rulers of the city made it a law that there was to be a distance of at least 30 feet between the town walls and the building (thereby effectively making it impossible to leave the city by the roofs).
My take on it is that 4E "skill challenges" put the players in a position to contribute to shaping the world in which they play. Once again, at this point, I'm not sure whether it's a good thing or not. That's a trend that I also find in the vague power descriptions (e.g., paladin's divine challenge: the rules describe the effects, but it's up to the players/DMs to find out how those effects are obtained).
In my games, I tend to try and present the PCs with a living and breathing world, full of NPCs that they can later contact to help them overcome problems. I actually like it when my players get clever and remember an old NPC and decide to go back to him/her to ask for help. Now, I'm talking about NPCs here, but this can also include special places, special items, and any other things that can later be used "cleverly". That's how I like my players to overcome challenges: by using their skills and basing their decisions on what they have learned about the gameworld. That's what I'm not so sure I would like the option to let players shape the world themselves (e.g., I want to use Knowledge/history to flee the city, so I'll invent that the city has sewers).
But yes ... this option is what seems to be the "big novelty" of 4E skill challenges.
What do the 4th edition skill rules provide that 3.5 isn't able to achieve? I'm wondering what the differences are. Can you help us out with this?
Dalvyn wrote:
The main difference I see in 4E "skill challenges" is that those parts (how skills are used and what a success achieves) is now left to the *players* to determine. In the "flee the city" example, the *player* can come up with the idea to make a Knowledge/history check to remember a secret passage in the sewers; or choose to use an Acrobacy check to succeed in fleeing the city by the roofs.
Eileen wrote:
This can be done with 3.5 rules as well. If you have the Knowledge/Local Geography skill. The player asks if the character would recall a sewer, the DM has them make a skill check. The same thing can be said for the acrobatics of jumping from roof to roof to escape say city gaurds. I keep hearing how the skill rules are much better than 3.5 and that they provide a lot more uses but I'm not understanding how.
I must be missing the point because this seems the same regardless of which edition we are discussing.
*weep* I didn't want to really get caught in a long discussion of it to start with... but I just wrote up a huge example and explanation anyways... and it ate it. On submit, it went to the store main page and back had nothing.
I'll get back to you on this. Maybe. Argh.
*weep* I didn't want to really get caught in a long discussion of it to start with... but I just wrote up a huge example and explanation anyways... and it ate it. On submit, it went to the store main page and back had nothing.
I'll get back to you on this. Maybe. Argh.
Here - there's at least enough discussion elsewhere to hopefully fill in the details. I tried to be a lot more coherent than that and...
Argh, I feel like the dog just ate my homework and peed on my bag. I'm going to bed.
Dalvyn wrote:
The main difference I see in 4E "skill challenges" is that those parts (how skills are used and what a success achieves) is now left to the *players* to determine.Eileen wrote:
This can be done with 3.5 rules as well. If you have the Knowledge/Local Geography skill. The player asks if the character would recall a sewer, the DM has them make a skill check. The same thing can be said for the acrobatics of jumping from roof to roof to escape say city gaurds. I keep hearing how the skill rules are much better than 3.5 and that they provide a lot more uses but I'm not understanding how.
I must be missing the point because this seems the same regardless of which edition we are discussing.
Ah, you are entirely right, yes. This can be done in 3.5. And, just to be honest, I am actually not pretending that 4E rules are better than 3.5 rules - as I wrote above, I'm currently on the fence (with a slight preference for 3.5 though).
My point was this: the 4E "skill challenge" seems to be like an invitation for the DM to ask a very open-ended question like "You need to get out of the city, as quickly as possible. Pick up a skill and come up with a good (possible world-reshaping) explanation as to how it will help you then roll a skill check."
I do not really recall seeing something so "open-ended" in 3.5; I would actually think that 3.5 incited DMs and players to go in the "other direction". While 4E asks players to pick a skill then come with an explanation, it seems to me that 3.5 philosophy was more to first find an explanation (based on what the players know of the world) THEN pick up the best skill for it. In other words (and with some broad categorization), 3.5 incited players to make a choice based on what their characters know of the world [that's what I would call roleplay] while 4E seems to incite players to make a choice based on their skills, then come up with a justification [which I would rather call imagination than roleplay]. That being said, it's not as clear-cut as that: 4E players can also pick up a skill based on how they roleplay their character then find a way to make it useful.
The main difference (but that's a gut feeling more than anything) is that 4E incites players to come up with justifications that might require the world to be re-shaped while 3.5 incites players to base their choice upon what they know of the world. But that's just an opinion. :)
Find a solution and then pick a skill.
Pick a skill and find a way to use it.
I think people do both of these with 3.5, nor does it seem to be proscribed in any way by the rules, it just depends on the kind of problem solving strategies a player engages in.
I fail to see any difference between 3.5 and 4 other than lingo.
Ok, thanks Dalvyn, that helps me understand things a bit better. Sounds like the rules provide the same basic effect, the difference being that in 4th edition the authors went out of their way to promote skill choices in the heat of the moment for the characters. More like a style of play than anything. Sure the same style can be used in 3.5, but I wouldn't say the PHis written with this in mind, it is something the DM would have to promote as oppose to the PH doing for them. Thanks!
Sure the same style can be used in 3.5, but I wouldn't say the PHis written with this in mind, it is something the DM would have to promote as oppose to the PH doing for them. Thanks!
Okay, I get it. The 4E PHB gives some good advice on problem solving using skills. This understandably wouldn't impress someone who has been gaming for 20 or more years.
Ok, thanks Dalvyn, that helps me understand things a bit better. Sounds like the rules provide the same basic effect, the difference being that in 4th edition the authors went out of their way to promote skill choices in the heat of the moment for the characters. More like a style of play than anything. Sure the same style can be used in 3.5, but I wouldn't say the PHis written with this in mind, it is something the DM would have to promote as oppose to the PH doing for them. Thanks!Okay, I get it. The 4E PHB gives some good advice on problem solving using skills.
Yes, that was what I got out of it. Say Kruelaid, can you take these cuffs off yet, my wrists are getting kinda sore.
<Click, click.>
No problem. After all that... screaming... it just slipped my mind.
<Click, click.>
No problem. After all that... screaming... it just slipped my mind.
Thanks, I've been waiting for quite awhile. I couldn't go to bed until you did. Hope I didn't hurt your ears, that was fun, we'll have to do it against some time.
By the way I noticed you forgot to double lock your cuffs.
By the way I noticed you forgot to double lock your cuffs.
Well, I only had one hand free at the time... ED: and the key was a little slippery.
By the way I noticed you forgot to double lock your cuffs.Well, I only had one hand free at the time...
Oh Boy, someone is getting frisky! Round two tommorrow, this time don't be quite as much of a gentleman.
Okay, I get it. The 4E PHB gives some good advice on problem solving using skills. This understandably wouldn't impress someone who has been gaming for 20 or more years.
I think its more than just "good advice," I think 4e (as far as I can tell right now with limited info) is going to make those choices easier for new players and judges because those choices are going to be made explicit in the rules.
While its great that judges and players with your and my level of experience can say, "Well duh!" I saw that mechanic in Paranoia, or Star Wars from West End, or Pendragon. Or, I have been doing that all along. Unfortunately we (the old guard) are fraction of the 50% of the market (current players) that WotC is after.
WotC's stated goal is to get as many current gamers to try 4e in the first 6 months and then the next will be spend the next 6 trying to attract new players (the guys and gals that will benefit from 4e's rules intergration), hence current players are 50% of the market they would like and the rest is new players.
If the rules support a style of play you presently use, then it shouldn't be a hardship to use those rules. However when WotC moves on to bringing new folks to the fold, the assumptions that you or I would make about the game go out the window, and catering to just us becomes a problems.
So, in short, I am not seeing the problem here. I am not expecting to find radical new gaming mechanics from these guys. What I am expecting a refinement born of 7 years of hard playing that we all put on 3e and hopefully a more unified set of mechanics that builds one upon the other rather than digressing into subsets.
That will make teaching the game much easier. Perhaps it the fact that my current campaign is 90% 3e noobs and the game bogs down occasionally when we go into a sub-system that uses stuff like hardness (Gods I hate sunder) or when someone asks me for the aura of all the magic in the room and its strength. It gets old fast and slows down the game either in prep-time or worse at the table.
My Two Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
Still Sitting On The 4e Fence
|
|
Here - there's at least enough discussion elsewhere to hopefully fill in the details. I tried to be a lot more coherent than that and...
From a post there quoting another post:
"There's a post from someone (smerwin29) who reportedly ran the noncombat encounter further down on ENworld that may provide more info
I ran "Escape from Sembia" at DDXP, and while I cannot talk in great detail about skill challenges, I can say some things:
Good DMs in any of the previous editions of D&D could do (and have been) something like skills challenges for decades. The skill challenge system is there to help DMs create a framework that allows the PCs to have flexibility in solving problems without making it too hard or too simple."
So as I said, some of us have already been doing this.
And as was noted here, as a DM for so long, I have already seen all the various elements of this, from the compound skill checks, to the different levels of success, to the added bonuses for levels of challenge and success.
Also, as it happens, some of those descriptions are remarkably close to the reasoning I used in designing an encounter trap recently.
Side Note: Unless someone else is using the same name, I have worked with smerwin29, and if he likes the way the system is written, I expect I will as well.
Yeah, I don't think they reinvented the wheel at all. If anything, the only real gain is probably that it will provide a structure that may help new DMs develop interesting Skill encounters and events for their games. Most DMs will have been doing something similar. It's nice that they added it in though, I think.
|
I do not think that I get the idea of skill challanges.
Since I tarte roleplaying 25 years ago for me as a DM it was always like this:
Players come up with an idea. DM comes up with the mechanics to to simulate the idea if possible.
Skill challanges fo me seems more like:
Players come up with their best mechanic. DM has to come up with an explanation why this mechanic works or does not work.
I mean, what I gathered from the "Escape form Sembia" examples as a DM I have 2 options:
1) The escape is important and risky, so I present the players with opportunities that they can take. The greedy guard that can be bribed. The dark side alley that leads to th city wall etc. The players use their wits to come up with an idea. The Charismatic Sorcerer talks to the guard (diplomacy) and bribes him (bonus on diplomacy) while the rogues tries to sneak past the guard (move silently, hide). The Barbarian poses as the Sorcerers bodyguard (disguise used by the rogue)and just looks menacing (intimidate) that the guards won´t take a closer look at him.
2) The escape is not an important sequence in the game and the players want to move on. I just describle loosly how they escape.
So, tell me again, why do we need skill chalanges?
P.S. It is indeed funny, that Rodney mentions the Fighter using an unfun skill.
So, tell me again, why do we need skill chalanges?
To provide a system for determining the difficulty of a non-combat challenge, and a framework for letting your players play through it.
I recently wrote a module where the players had to sneak inside a stockade. They would probably have been disguised by this point (but might not have been), the guards were distracted and easily cowed but unbribable, the walls were regularly patrolled but on a strict pattern.
It would have been great if I could have just said that and been done with it. I could have handled it with just that. But a lot of GM's would have had problems and gotten frustrated with it. Instead I had to go and look up the DC's of Intimidate checks and Climb checks, put in all these modifiers for if you're disguised, and if you're sneaking, and if you botch a diplomacy roll.
It sounds like 4e is going to be a lot more flexible and a lot more fun. More of "how do we get past this as a group" and less "what does the GM think is the right answer". And sure, you might be doing that in 3.5 right now, and you could easily retrofit the skill challenge system to 3.5 if you wanted, but don't discount the value of having it as a core mechanic in 4e. Especially if they include an easy way to determine the experience you earn for them.
|
So, tell me again, why do we need skill chalanges?To provide a system for determining the difficulty of a non-combat challenge, and a framework for letting your players play through it.
the system already exists in full in 3.5 skill system. The framework, is the narative I use. Sorry, nothing noteworthy here.
In fact, It sounds likely with the whole "empower the player" aspect, that many DMs will have to wrestle with rules lawyers to maintain their narrative vision in a game.
I do not think that I get the idea of skill challanges.
Since I tarte roleplaying 25 years ago for me as a DM it was always like this:
Players come up with an idea. DM comes up with the mechanics to to simulate the idea if possible.
And this model has been basically D&D from its inception until 3.5.
And by this I mean there is a structural bias in the rules placing the burden of plot, mechanics, and narrative solely in his hands. It doesn't precluded a DM from shifting the equation to say, players and DMs sharing responsibility for a scene or players saying I have x, y, z abilities thus my PC would try the following to solve non-combat problem A.
To break out of the base assumption that DMs are responsible for all mechanical aspects of a PC decision meant extra work for the DM (educating players on a shift in rules)and now the game is running outside the "norm" of D&D. Play experience and expectation is not consistent from table to table under this model. There is also an automatic no factor when a DM doesn't know the appropriate rules or there isn't one to cover the situation.
Skill challanges fo me seems more like:
Players come up with their best mechanic. DM has to come up with an explanation why this mechanic works or does not work.
I mean, what I gathered from the "Escape form Sembia" examples as a DM I have 2 options:
1) The escape is important and risky, so I present the players with opportunities that they can take.
<SNIP>
Partly true. Except you don't provide the ways the PCs can escape...
The DM sets the scene, "You have the town guard looking to arrests you, they are violently searching the merchant stalls, yelling at patron and merchant alike with your description, getting closer and closer to your position. Unless you want a hopeless fight against the entire city guard its time to leave, what do you do?"
The players now look at their PC stats (and hopefully their backgrounds) and think of how their PCs would use their abilities and motivations to get out of the situation.
Before the player says, "Haley stows her short bow, looks for a nearby cloak to steal, moves to hide among the crowd and makes for the roof line when out of sight of the guards" and now the DM calls for a knowledge (local), spot, slight of hand, disguise (opposed by guard's spot), and a jump or climb check and sets all the DC based on what he knows about the market (or what he has described up to this point or is in the pre-written mod, hopefully). Hopefully Haley's player has ranks in all of these skills or there is going to be a high chance that one or more of these will fail killing the mood (yes, you can provide modifiers and such but its very mechanical and some judges on autopilot would actually go into combat rounds to adjudicated each action instead of have the player take 10 or roll each one)
Now the player knows his PC's motivations and abilities and thinks, well I was a street urchin and I have skills in athletics and thievery and thus, I know the best way to avoid the town guard is to quickly change my appearance and try to slip unnoticed to the roof to rapidly move towards the town walls. She now says, "Haley recalls her hardscrabble life on the streets as an urchin, and looks for a nearby shawl or cloak to make a quick change in appearance so has to blend with the crowd and when out of sight in an alleyway will make for the roof and freedom." The player declares what level of success she wants to attain (setting the DC for her level) trading chance of success for a lesser or greater result and which relevant skills she has to do them with (it could be multiple skills but based upon the PC's abilities) and rolls. The judge merely makes sure that the narrative does not conflict with something established by him or a previous PC and confirms that the stakes are appropriate to the result.
This approach makes the players more collaborative and give them stakes in their PCs background/abilities and the world around them.
It gives some of the burden of world building and narative to the players that previously was assumed by the DM in the rules set.
The assumption is that the DM is not an adversary in this relationship and is there to reward creative play (x.p.) and arbitrate when player's plans go awry (bad rolls or decisions) force them in to conflict with someone or something.
This is my impression of the rules I have seen so far from WotC based on how these things have worked in other games. I could be wrong, I won't be sure until I see the whole rules in June.
My two coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
the system already exists in full in 3.5 skill system. The framework, is the narative I use. Sorry, nothing noteworthy here.
Show me where, in the 3.5 rules, it explains how to determine the experience award for escaping the guards in a medium-size city. Also how many skill checks should be involved, and what the penalties for failing one or several of them are.
And don't just say "the GM gets to make it up". Obviously the GM can just make it up. I'd like a system that helped the GM make it up.
|
|
From what I've read, I get the impression that in fact, skill challenges are a radical departure for the d20 system.
It appears that, at their heart, they are a conflict resolution system, rather than a task resolution system. What I think this means is that the GM and player determine what is at stake as a whole (either: "do I escape from the city?" or "do I get closer to my goal of escaping from the city?") and then roll dice. Based on the dice-roll, they narrate the events which happened to show the escape/increased chance of escape/drawbacks/capture. This is markedly different from a task resolution system where the GM explains in clear detail how far away the guards are, points out the ladder, crates, bickering couple, seedy bar, and sewer grate the PCs can see and says: "what do you do", followed by a hide check or a intimidate check or a climb check or whatever, then figures out whether being on the roof is good enough to help the player avoid being noticed, or whether the intimidate check was enough to rile the couple to violence against each other.
Actually this isn't a complete departure: doing one of the RPGA GM tests directed me to a hidden rule about chases (basically, opposed con check if over a long distance, opposed dex check if in close quarters/city/whatever) but it's a considerably more fun system than that one!
Now, whether this is a good development or not is a matter of opinion. It goes hand-in-hand with the move away from pretending that D&D is a simulationist system, which is the primary basis of the classic d20 skills system. It seems as if both will go hand-in-hand. Do you want the PCs to have an easier time of things if they can climb down the rope and not have to fight through three rooms of monsters to get to the stairs? A classic skill check from each PC is perfectly sensible, with allowances made for clever planning to help those who can't climb well get down safely. Do you want an obstacle in your battlefield which the PCs can exploit? Jump checks etc are the perfect mechanism. But if you want a scene where the PCs are trying to convince the King that marrying his daughter off to the crown prince of somewhereland is a very bad idea, anything which beats a bare opposed diplomacy check or (worse) the D&D 3.5 diplomacy skill as written, is likely to be more fun, and back that fun up with better mechanical support.
the system already exists in full in 3.5 skill system. The framework, is the narative I use. Sorry, nothing noteworthy here.
In fact, It sounds likely with the whole "empower the player" aspect, that many DMs will have to wrestle with rules lawyers to maintain their narrative vision in a game.
I would agree the elements to use 3.5 mechanics in this manner are present in the rules, but they are neither encouraged or modeled in the advice or rules set. This becomes a DM issue (personality) vs. game design issue (process). As personality is variable, your play experience under 3.5 will vary table to table based upon DM experience and play style. If the game rules instead outline the relationship between DM and player, setting expectations that it is more collaborative that is more systemic.
As to your second assertion that rules lawyers will overpower the DM's vision that is a problem that exists no mater what rules you have. If your base assumption is that all players seek to abuse the rules and your job is to police them, then you treat all players with the same lack of trust. That means that people that can add to the narrative have no incentive to do so because the DM is too busy slapping down everyone. That is quite frankly tiring.
That is something you control by dealing with the individuals abusing the system (either by corrections in game or talking with them out of game). If they cannot reign it in, then they can leave the table.
I see the 4e rules being a breath of fresh air for D&D, sharing some of the burden of the game around the table so that I can spend time doing cool stuff for my players and that they are more engaged in coming up with the how and why while I concentrate on the result... This I like.
My Two Coppers,
Bryan Blumklotz
AKA Saracenus
4e Fence Sitter, Show Me The Rules Damn You...
Show me where, in the 3.5 rules, it explains how to determine the experience award for escaping the guards in a medium-size city.
Whether or not 4E does that is pure supposition at this time. Let's not fall into blind fanboy-ism either please. Neither that nor lowly unmotivated insults help make the discussion more interesting.
And don't just say "the GM gets to make it up". Obviously the GM can just make it up. I'd like a system that helped the GM make it up.
It seems to me that 3.5 helped DMs make it up, in the PHB's Table 4-3: Difficulty Class Examples as well as in the DMG's very long Table 2-5: Difficulty Class Examples, and in the whole section discussing degrees of success and degrees of failure around that table.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
My concern here is with the player who builds a character with enormous bonuses in one or two skills. Let's say: streetwise and knowlege (dungeoneering).
In current D&D, the uses for those skills are reasonably well-defined. I suspect that the same is really true with 4th Edition. But the "Escape from Sembia" makes it sound like the new rules would allow a character with an enormous bonus to use it much more often, in a much wider variety of situations.
When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you've got at 5th Level is a +21 to your Sleight of Hand skill ...
Using the same skill, over and over, in whatever tortured circumstances you can convince the DM to allow it, sounds like a less robust game system. And so I'm sure that 4th Edition would actually discourage that kind of thing.
From what I've read, I get the impression that in fact, skill challenges are a radical departure for the d20 system.
It appears that, at their heart, they are a conflict resolution system, rather than a task resolution system. What I think this means is that the GM and player determine what is at stake as a whole (either: "do I escape from the city?" or "do I get closer to my goal of escaping from the city?") and then roll dice. Based on the dice-roll, they narrate the events which happened to show the escape/increased chance of escape/drawbacks/capture. This is markedly different from a task resolution system where the GM explains in clear detail how far away the guards are, points out the ladder, crates, bickering couple, seedy bar, and sewer grate the PCs can see and says: "what do you do", followed by a hide check or a intimidate check or a climb check or whatever, then figures out whether being on the roof is good enough to help the player avoid being noticed, or whether the intimidate check was enough to rile the couple to violence against each other.
Actually this isn't a complete departure: doing one of the RPGA GM tests directed me to a hidden rule about chases (basically, opposed con check if over a long distance, opposed dex check if in close quarters/city/whatever) but it's a considerably more fun system than that one!
Now, whether this is a good development or not is a matter of opinion. It goes hand-in-hand with the move away from pretending that D&D is a simulationist system, which is the primary basis of the classic d20 skills system. It seems as if both will go hand-in-hand. Do you want the PCs to have an easier time of things if they can climb down the rope and not have to fight through three rooms of monsters to get to the stairs? A classic skill check from each PC is perfectly sensible, with allowances made for clever planning to help those who can't climb well get down safely. Do you want an obstacle in your battlefield which the PCs can exploit? Jump checks etc are...
Excellent post, great avatar.
:)
Seriously. I don't have a voice in this debate but I'm following it with interest. I'd like to see some of you guys engage Pedr here. I found his comments thought provoking.
My concern here is with the player who builds a character with enormous bonuses in one or two skills. Let's say: streetwise and knowlege (dungeoneering).
In current D&D, the uses for those skills are reasonably well-defined. I suspect that the same is really true with 4th Edition. But the "Escape from Sembia" makes it sound like the new rules would allow a character with an enormous bonus to use it much more often, in a much wider variety of situations.
When all you've got is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. When all you've got at 5th Level is a +21 to your Sleight of Hand skill ...
Using the same skill, over and over, in whatever tortured circumstances you can convince the DM to allow it, sounds like a less robust game system. And so I'm sure that 4th Edition would actually discourage that kind of thing.
The flip side of this are situations where the lack of the correct skill (or the correct skill raised to a level where success is reasonable), prevents the goal from being achieved. I.e. No one raised their jump skill. No one took Diplomacy, because their previous GM never called for it so it became the 'dump skill.'
Now the counter-argument is that an experienced GM will construct their adventures to suit their PC's abilities. Yet how is that any different than that 'modification' coming from the PCs instead of the GM?
I take you point about potential abuse. I don't know how the system regulates that, so it's a valid concern.
One can't really write a Core Book without accounting for all levels of GM experience.
Better coaching on how to use a system is not a fault or a flaw. Reducing the number of years required to master a system is a worthwhile goal.
If 3.5 had a similar skill system, what of it? There are significant changes that do require a new book, why not polish up that similar skill system?
:D Do we criticize because something wasn't changed a great deal?
Are we cheated that initiative hasn't changed all that much? :)
Whether or not 4E does that is pure supposition at this time.
It's far from pure supposition, but it does draw a few conclusions based on what the developers have said. That doesn't invalidate my main point, which is that 4e provides a way of thinking about, and setting up, a series of free-form skill checks for overcoming challenges. 3.5 does not. Surely on that we can both agree?
Let's not fall into blind fanboy-ism either please. Neither that nor lowly unmotivated insults help make the discussion more interesting.
Heh. "Don't call me a knucklehead, you knucklehead! Nyuk-nyuk-nyuk! Why I oughta ..." Your call for civility might go better if you didn't start tossing around terms like "fanboy".
I had and still have a lot of concerns about 4e. But I've found answers for some of them, and some of them the developers assure us are being addressed, and others we're just going to have to wait and see. I haven't found anything close to a deal-breaker for me, and many things I thought were problems (like 1-1-1-1 diagonal movement) didn't bug me in the least.
It seems to me that 3.5 helped DMs make it up, in the PHB's Table 4-3: Difficulty Class Examples as well as in the DMG's very long Table 2-5: Difficulty Class Examples, and in the whole section discussing degrees of success and degrees of failure around that table.
But that's exactly my point. The system is just for adjudicating a single skill check. Balance on this fence, bluff this merchant, forge this document. I'm talking about putting together a series of skill checks, and balancing their difficulty against what the party can do.
You know the closest thing 3.5 has to that is? The trap system. In the module I mentioned earlier, I wanted to have the roof of a castle only accessible by climbing the tapestries lining the walls of a banquet hall, then shimmying along a rotted beam. All while a banquet was in full swing below. I wrote it up as a trap. Because it's the only place in the rules that combines a couple of different skill checks along with experience for success and penalties for failure. And it still didn't feel quite right.
Okay, that's it... my computer doesn't want me to post in this thread, 'nother post down the drain.
Thank you pedr and sarcenus... Pedr nailed it, it's conflict resolution not task resolution. Quick googling didn't turn up a good writeup, but I guess I can link another thread discussing some things. On the GNS triangle, S got kicked to the curb and N was given a big hug.
I'm very curious to see regulated games like at a convention or from the RPGA change from:
Convince the King: Either Diplomacy 20 or Bluff 25
Escape from the Guards: One of Hide 15, Climb 18, or Speed>30
Search for Clues: Gather Information 25 or Search <In a very specific spot> 18
to
Skill Challenge
Success: 7
Failure: 4
Easy: 11
Normal: 15
Hard: 19
or, shorthanded probably more like
SkC 7/4; 11/15/19
and note that could work for all of those tasks, and switches it from a static gameplay element to 'Let us cooperatively make a story'.
I kinda like how as a DM that little line can easily prompt the entire group being involved in making a story and heavy roleplay, rather than the default one person has the skill and makes a check while the rest cheerlead them on (or not)
But that's exactly my point. The system is just for adjudicating a single skill check. Balance on this fence, bluff this merchant, forge this document. I'm talking about putting together a series of skill checks, and balancing their difficulty against what the party can do.
That's exactly what I couldn't articulate what I was thinking when I posted earlier.
How do you-
- Tailor the challenge to the level of risk (not all fences, bluffs, and documents being equal)
- Reconcile that challenge to the ability of the party (do you, the GM, want them to have a legitimate chance of success or not?)
- Do it quickly, on the fly, without having momentum drop because you're fumbling for a chart
I'm not upset about the twenty years of experience remark, but it doesn't contribute to the conversation, it just seeks to end it prematurely, as it only speaks to that individual. The game needs to be accessible to all levels of experience.
and note that could work for all of those tasks, and switches it from a static gameplay element to 'Let us cooperatively make a story'.I kinda like how as a DM that little line can easily prompt the entire group being involved in making a story and heavy roleplay, rather than the default one person has the skill and makes a check while the rest cheerlead them on (or not)
This raises a question that keeps coming up for me. I keep seeing people say that 4e is all about combat and that it leaves no room for roleplaying. But from everything I've seen, the impression that I get is that there is going to be a reduction in the number of times the dice will be tossed, or a streamlining of the process, which from my admittedly ignorant perspective, would make it easier to focus on telling the story. As I said, though, my command of the subject is poor (I'm trying to get back into playing after an absence since first edition), so the chance I don't have the whole picture is very good.
|
|
The real difference in 3.5 and 4E skills is the scope of each skill. 4E skills seem to represent broad competencies rather than narrowly defined skills. In 3.5 a character with a high hide skill but a low move silently skill cannot be said to be really stealthy just really good at hiding. In 4E a good stealth roll can cover both and then some.
In 4E it will be easier to improvise skill use because the definition of each skill is broad.
One of the things that floored me after I got back from D&D Experience was that it was widely called less RPy and more wargame/boardgame/ccg-y, when my own interpretation was that it was much less wargamey and much more story based. I talked about this a little in the thread about if another publisher had put out 4E as something else.
|
|
So do I understand right... In 4e, the designers encourage you to set a difficulty for success, without actually determining the skill that has to be used to overcome the challenge, and then, once the difficulty is set, let the players choose what skill they want to use against the pre-set difficulty.
Pretty close - basically it says 'Everyone's character concept should get a chance to shine, in some way'.
It further allows you to do things like let the players up the stakes and try for a hard success, in exchange for an extra benefit.
It is worth noting that task resolution still exists... it's still DC 15 to stabilize someone with Heal, for instance.
This applies more to 'Setting a scene for skills to be used'
One of the things that floored me after I got back from D&D Experience was that it was widely called less RPy and more wargame/boardgame/ccg-y, when my own interpretation was that it was much less wargamey and much more story based.
That may have depended on your judge and your table. I could certainly see bits and pieces of the non-combat system, but when you're playing through the delve it's difficult to imagine there's anything but combat. Because there isn't anything but combat.
FWIW, I had a lot easier time imagining what was happening in 4e combat than 3.5. I think because there was a lot less "stand still and thump something"--the fighter didn't just run up and hit something, she ran up, used Tide of Iron, battered the hobgoblin back a square and stepped up, following it.
|
|
So do I understand right... In 4e, the designers encourage you to set a difficulty for success, without actually determining the skill that has to be used to overcome the challenge, and then, once the difficulty is set, let the players choose what skill they want to use against the pre-set difficulty.
My understanding is that the player and GM set the skill that is appropriate and the player says how high a challenge he wants to try. The harder the challenge level set the more you learn, the more you can do, the more you can do.
I think that is how it works.