# Any New Info on Skill Encounters?



## hbarsquared (Mar 4, 2008)

Has anyone returned from D&DXP that played _Escape from Sembia_ have any additional thoughts on the "chase scene" and the use of skills therein?

I think I've gleaned the basics...  DC 11, 15, 19 for easy, medium, hard attempts, and characters can use practically any skill to gain any advantage (Acrobatics to climb rooftops, Stealth to lose oneself in the crowd, History to find an entrance to the underground sewers).

But what were the specifics of our experiences?  Did the character describe the action, the DM, or both?  What were the mechanical results of each of the three type of checks?  How did they interact with the guards?

We have the character sheets, the monsters, and various other samples to construct an at-home delve...  but we don't have the full experiences of the Skills, yet, which I am very much interested in compiling and implementing.

So, who out there would like to expound on this?


----------



## Christian (Mar 4, 2008)

C'mon, _somebody_ must have something!


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 4, 2008)

That was about what I got out of playing.  Failing an easy check gave you a -2 on future checks, and succeeding on a hard check gave you a +2.  We described what our character was doing and the DM described the results.

I got the vague impression that there may have been something else going on, like that only certain skills would actually count towards success in the encounter, but that's only a hunch.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 5, 2008)

Well, that's a useful clue...  A -2 on future checks on a fail, +2 for a success.

So: failing on an easy gives you a future -2 ...
What about a fail on a medium or hard?

And: succeeding on a hard gives you a future +2 ...
What about succeeding on an easy or medium?

Am I correct in understanding this?

It seems like I'm missing something...  Why choose easy if you have no penalty by failing at the medium DC?  What's the point of getting +2 on future checks if you are already succeeding at a hard check?

Thanks for the info, though!


----------



## Primitive Screwhead (Mar 5, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> What's the point of getting +2 on future checks if you are already succeeding at a hard check?




A medium check would be the 'norm'. Making a hard check would get you a leg up on the pursuit, so it gets easier to get away from or close with your enemy. Same deal with failing an easy check..

This sounds alot like *Hot Pursuit*

Any other details on the scene?


----------



## JVisgaitis (Mar 5, 2008)

The mechanics were interesting. The DM I had wasn't very good and he didn't describe much at all. He pretty much moved a "miniature" closer to us if we failed the roll. He didn't really explain much about what was going on until we got away. Can someone explain this a bit more indepth? I'd love to know how a good DM handled it.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 5, 2008)

From what I was told everyone makes a skill check in turn. You needed 4 successes to win and 4 failures to lose. If you fail an easy check "something bad" happens. If you succeed at a hard check "something good" happens. I suspect the DM has a fair amount of freedom in deciding what something bad or something good means.

This is all based on second hand info so I can't vouch for it's accuracy.


----------



## keterys (Mar 5, 2008)

Yeah, basically we went around the table making stuff up. A couple of us were better at it than a couple others, so when they were confused we moved to the next. Everything at my table was done by description, with the player thinking up the idea and a description (usually) and the DM describing the results.

Lessee - if I recall correctly...
Insight was used to find a group of greedy merchants who fought over some coins tossed in the street
Bluff was used to convince some people the guards were doing something bad
Streetwise was used to figure out a good way to go
Acrobatics and stealth were used to elude guards
History was used to find a sewer entrance
Athletics was used to hurl the grate to the sewer entrance at the one lone guard who was still following

A couple times the DM gave us +2 to the roll if it sounded particularly good (DM's Friend). The DCs could have been 10/15/20, but never rolled the #s needed to verify


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 5, 2008)

lussmanj from the forums over at giantitp.com says the following about his experience at DDXP.



> We had one event in the module "Escape From Sembia" in which the players had to make a number of skill checks in order to get out of the city unseen. Each player made a wager on what skill check they could hit hit (easy was 11, moderate 14, and difficult 18) and then rolled the check. If they beat their wager on moderate, the team got a success, and if they missed it, they got a loss. If they made it on easy, they got a success but if they missed it, they got 2 losses. If they succeeded at hard, they got a chance to make a 2nd skill check in another skill for a bonus point. The goal was to get to a certain amount of successes before getting a number of defeats. Our team failed because we got 4 defeats before we got to 6 successes (had 5!) and because of that, we got out, but our faces were seen. Later, we had an encounter with some people who started out as hostile to us because they knew who we were and were waiting for us. Since they had us pinned at a bridge and we had a letter they wanted, we had to fight them. If we had been successful earlier, we could have bluffed them with a "these are not the droids you are looking for" ruse. It was kind of fun, and involved the whole group in skill checks instead of just 1 face character.
> 
> Examples of checks made
> The Eladrin Ranger hid, and because his hide was so high chose difficult, and when he made the check got a free preception check to notice a short cut out for a bonus success.
> ...




I find the concept of skill wagers interesting, and is apparently used in some other RPGs.  Anyone else have any experience with such a system?


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

So instead of reacting to the actual situation you simply say "I want to roll skill X" and when you succeed 6 times you have "won" this skill encounter?


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2008)

Well no, by what they say you don'y say I want to roll Skill X. You say I want to do this, which is accomplished by Skill X and I think I can manage to do it this good.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).

Imo improvement = 0.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 5, 2008)

It's like 3.x, except everyone gets to join in, it's more involved and dynamic, and there are rules for the xp you get.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2008)

No it really is nothing like 3e. You have multiple checks, successes and losses give synergistic effects based on the encounter. Also it has been confirmed that the encounter also has an XP tag. Difficulty levels and multiple successes are not a gamist element, they are a mechanical element that improves simulation of a complicated encounter. The need for multiple checks and the freeform use of abilities promotes multiple characters using skills as long as they can justify skill usage. This promotes roleplay.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> So instead of reacting to the actual situation you simply say "I want to roll skill X" and when you succeed 6 times you have "won" this skill encounter?






If the gm allows it, it might be as simple as that. Somewhat equivalent to the 3e diplomacy check. But the example quoted just above your post implies that it could be a lot more complicated.

I also get the feeling that they have had a look at some non-task resolution type rpgs when they made the skill check system for 4e. at least it seems to be inspired by conflict resolution systems?


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).
> 
> Imo improvement = 0.




Sounds like there is more of a structure to this, my group will like this kinda stuff, if used right could be a fun meta-encounter, it lets the players use there imagination in a new way. It gives the players a structure for some small control over the world that previously only the DM had and would rarely give to the players. 

They can setup situations for their characters to shine in and there is still a strong element of chance.

Definitely an improvement over something that was not there in previous editions, but is not a system that you, as a DM, have to use. You may not like the system but it is up to how you resolve this kind of situation, you could go pure roleplay if you wished.

EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Sounds like there is more of a structure to this, my group will like this kinda stuff, if used right could be a fun meta-encounter, it lets the players use there imagination in a new way. It gives the players a structure for some small control over the world that previously only the DM had and would rarely give to the players.
> 
> They can setup situations for their characters to shine in and there is still a strong element of chance.
> 
> Definitely an improvement over something that was not there in previous editions, but is not a system that you, as a DM, have to use. You may not like the system but it is up to how you resolve this kind of situation, you could go pure roleplay if you wished.




Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.

So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.







> EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.




There are a few things, but not many.
I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.
I also don't believe that 4E is automatically better than 3E just because it is new. Can I do such a chase scene in 3E with multiple ways to use skills etc? Yes I can and in 3E I don't have this silly 6 successes to win and dificulty levels for bonuses mechanic behind it which hurts the living feel of the world.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.
> 
> So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
> Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.




Sure you could do much of the simple skill checks in 3e and duplicate the round robin way it was done at the adventure. But, assuming what we seen in the Adventure was outlined in the DMG, the whole system is new, not just a simple check any more. If you don't like the new sub-system I'd guess that it is pretty modular and ripping it out will not cause any problems.

I really like the sound of it, I will most likely be using it. I can understand that some people will not like it though.

As to the second check after the wall,  maybe doing it on Hard means you do it very fast and that leaves an opportunity for something else to happen.



> There are a few things, but not many.
> I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.
> I also don't believe that 4E is automatically better than 3E just because it is new. Can I do such a chase scene in 3E with multiple ways to use skills etc? Yes I can and in 3E I don't have this silly 6 successes to win and dificulty levels for bonuses mechanic behind it which hurts the living feel of the world.




I am curious now, as we have seen some substantial previews of 4e, both fluff and crunch, if you would not be better off sticking with 3.5e as it seems to suit your personal style. Are you still hoping for 4e to change direction or have something you can use?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 5, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> EDIT: As an aside, I dont think I've seen a positive post from you on 4e, this is not an attack, I'm just wondering if there is anything in the previews that you do like.



My advice: Check your personal profile / Account and look for the key word "buddy list". That's not what you want to use, but there is a similar list with opposite intent. It works wonders... It doesn't protect you against quotes, though. 

Ahem.

I wonder how much the system also supports DM influence on the allowed skills. But even if there is no explicit mentioning of it, it can definitely be used to create a more structured scene, if that's what the group/DM prefers.
Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)

So, you can use the same guidelines both for a "player-narrated" scenario and a "DM-narrated" scenario - or for a mix of both.


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I simply do not like the gamist philosophy 4E seems to support. I want a real living world and not a series of dungeon rooms with the occasional safe zone where the guys with the blue circles around their feet live which exists in a complete vacuum.




The people with blue circles around their feet define where the dungeon is.

The dungeon does not define where the people with blue circles around their feet are.

From such snippets is enlightenment gleaned.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> My advice: Check your personal profile / Account and look for the key word "buddy list". That's not what you want to use, but there is a similar list with opposite intent. It works wonders... It doesn't protect you against quotes, though.
> 
> Ahem.




 I actually like derrens posts mostly, even if I dont agree. 



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> I wonder how much the system also supports DM influence on the allowed skills. But even if there is no explicit mentioning of it, it can definitely be used to create a more structured scene, if that's what the group/DM prefers.
> Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)
> 
> So, you can use the same guidelines both for a "player-narrated" scenario and a "DM-narrated" scenario - or for a mix of both.




Hmm more prep work for me  Still it would be a good idea, I might sketch out some stuff to help players who are having some trouble thinking of some good. Or a mix of both types, but I really want my players to become more involved in the world, so giving up a little of the power seem like a good compromise. I'll just have to be on my toes, I have one guy who would push things if I was not careful.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which is no different than what you can do in 3E. Want to escape the guards? Climb on a roof if you are a good climber and it looks like a sensible thing to do. What 4E introduces is that there is a gamist element behind it. You have to win 6 skill checks and you succeed, no matter if you are still in the middle of a huge hostile metropole after those 6 checks. It also supports doing the less sensible thing of climbing the hard to climb surface just to get a +2 bonus instead of climbing on a easy to reach roof.
> 
> So the only thing this system does is limiting the DM by introducing a counter which limit the amounf of skill checks you can use and to make the PCs doing less sensible things to give them a bonus to checks which might be completely unrelated (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).
> Nothing prevents you from running such a skill scene with lots of checks in 3E. The DM even has a lot more freedom to do so.
> ...




Derren may I ask, where exactly did you get that it has to be 6 successes? The system is modular to be X successes before Y losses and the specific example was a 6/4 encounter. Also the DM can disregard skill checks that are irrelevant to the contest in place (the quoted example even suggests that he suspected their DM did just so for certain checks).

3E provides no guidelines at its core in handling such an encounter neither does it provide a good way to estimate XP for said encounter, something that 4E likely does? Aren't we completely disregarding the utility of such a mechanic to the new DM which is easily the hardest commodity in roleplaying communities? 

Also I have to ask, why exactly do you consider this a gamist mechanic? The DM can modulate the effect of the mechanic to his campaign style by making decisions on what makes a valid check or not. At the same time this mechanic feels far more like a tool that facilitates storytelling to me, since it promotes the player and DM to creating a sequence of scenes; it is a mechanic that basically helps build a scenario.

And I would very much like to know how you base your assumption that the system is created with the express purpose of facilitating static dungeon delves to the detriment of any other aspect. If anything, combat as revealed is far more dynamic in 4E making a scene with multiple encounters and active dungeon adversaries (the kind that rings alarms) far easier to run, and by moderating, if not removing the 15-minute adventure day, makes the incredulity of static dungeons less relevant.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Instead of letting the players decide which skill they want to use, the DM creates a sequence of obstacles (possible with alternate routes) and assigns the required skill checks himself. The player has a lot less control about what he can do, but the DM gains the opportunity to link mechanical and world element closer (and might have an easier time adjudicating the exact consequences of failures or success.)




Or you can simply have the layout of the city and let the players decide what to do, roll the appropriate checks and let the NPCs react accordingly. You know like in 3E. Or like in 4E without this "You made a hard skill check, you get a arbitrary +2 bonus" and "6 skill checks, you have won this scene" nonsense.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> So it is like in 3E (do what you want and roll teh appropriate check) with additional gamist elements introduced (difficulty levels, 6 successes and you win).
> 
> Imo improvement = 0.




Did you not read the quote, or did you not understand it? Either way you seem to have missed the point entirely here.

And I'm not sure what you mean by 'gamist'. Do you have characters roll attack rolls and saves in 3e at the moment? Isn't the game quintessentially gamist? Back in OD&D with the complete absence of "skills", the game certainly revolved around the players just saying what the PCs wanted to do and the DM telling them whether they succeeded or not, but ever since non-weapon proficiencies were introduced... 

Unearthed Arcana had some simple rules for 'complex skill checks' which were essentially otherwise missing from 3e - activities which required more than one skill check to determine success or failure. How was that more gamist than having a combat which requires more than one roll on each side to determine success or failure?

I'm afraid I don't quite get where you are coming from at the moment. Would it be possible to explain your preferred position a bit more?

Cheers


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

I'd have to see more of this system, but I think I really like it. 



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).




Why indeed?

Maybe there's someone on the other side of the "hard" wall that is more inclined to listen to your story, someone who can help you out.  That person's not on the other side of the "easy" wall.

Maybe it's a princess who's so impressed with your athletic prowess she swoons and helps you out.  She doesn't think so much of you if you climb the "easy" wall.

Get creative - you should be able to come up with something interesting.  And if you can't think how it might apply, then I'd imagine the DM has the ability to say, "That doesn't make sense to me; how about trying something else?"


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I'm afraid I don't quite get where you are coming from at the moment. Would it be possible to explain your preferred position a bit more?




By gamist I mean that in 4E there is a mechanic behind this whole skill scene which says "after X skill checks the characters win/loose" no matter where in the game world the characters currently are. To flee from a city the goal isn't to somehow overcome the walls and shaking off any pursuers but to simply succeed in X number of skill checks.
Or that you are simply given a bonus just because you take the hard road and succeed for no real reason.

Of course the DM can decide that some skill checks do not count but then you can also throw out this 4E system completely and simply let the PC do what he wants. As long as he reaches his goal (being outside of the city) everything goals without artificial limits and arbitrary difficulty levels.
This sort of skill encounter is a good advice, but a mechanic for it is imo completely unnecessary.



			
				LostSoul said:
			
		

> Maybe there's someone on the other side of the "hard" wall that is more inclined to listen to your story, someone who can help you out.  That person's not on the other side of the "easy" wall.
> 
> Maybe it's a princess who's so impressed with your athletic prowess she swoons and helps you out.  She doesn't think so much of you if you climb the "easy" wall.




Why should there be a princess? And why should the princess value the opinion of the PC more because he climbed a hard wall instead of an easy wall?
Thats the core problem. With the 4E system the mechanics determine the (in game) reality. "You climbed a hard wall, so there is a princess on the other side" and not the more realistic approach where the situation in the in game reality determine the mechanics like "There is a princess on the other side of this hard to climb wall, do you want to climb it anyway?"

Or to use a other example
4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
"3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.

I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 5, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I actually like derrens posts mostly, even if I dont agree.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm more prep work for me  Still it would be a good idea, I might sketch out some stuff to help players who are having some trouble thinking of some good. Or a mix of both types, but I really want my players to become more involved in the world, so giving up a little of the power seem like a good compromise. I'll just have to be on my toes, I have one guy who would push things if I was not careful.



Remember that since you just introduced a non-combat encounter that requires creativity, roleplaying and rolling some dice, you can prepare one combat less, too.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Or to use a other example
> 4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
> "3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.
> 
> I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.




Your example is not going to work exactly, but maybe the Streetwise check lets you know that there is a cart stored there most weekdays from a merchant next door and then an Acrobatics or Athletics check to allow the character to use that to vault over a wall or up to the roof. 

You will have to be on your toes if you are going to merge this system with a highly detailed campaign where everything mapped out.

This sort of system should help toward great and dramatic stories in a way that 3e mechanics did not.




			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Remember that since you just introduced a non-combat encounter that requires creativity, roleplaying and rolling some dice, you can prepare one combat less, too.




True, in the example it might be fun to have a few mini-combats for the slower fighter types, shield bashes and the odd grab from a local wannabe-hero type.

Come to think of it I could probably get the guts of a session out of this one example without it getting boring. It has been hard for me previously to keep the excitement levels up for this sort of thing.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 5, 2008)

I await the final implementation of this system, but the principle seems sound. D&D has a long history of saying "no!" to players simply because it doesn't account for it in the rulesystem. 

You're chased and overturn a cart of apples. 
* Do the guards stumble, trip, and lose sight of you? Effectively negating an entire encounter with a single sentence? They can't be _that_ incompetent.
* Maybe they have to make balance checks? What's the DC for apples on a marketplace? And do we really want to track each individual's full/half movement over squares of "difficult terrain" the entire time? That's even more mini oriented than 4E!
* Do we just ignore a cool grand and cinematic idea and say the game has no rules for apples and thus the guards ignore them?
* Or do I just pull something out of my ass based on nothing more than how my mood is? Is this even remotely fair? Don't I punish the people who can't think of cinematic stunts on the fly by doing this?

A system like this sounds like it encourages stunts and adjudicates them in a fair manner. Exceptionally good or bad ideas probably receive modifiers to the skill checks (just like every other skill check ever) but overall PCs can be daring and inventive. Roll Arcane to make a simple candle flare and belch out thick clouds of smoke. Roll Intimidate to startle some animals and set off a stampede. Roll Acrobatics to tumble through the street performers that walk on hot coals and juggle swords (wouldn't want to follow you through there!). At least players can attempt all this without being told "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. I don't have rules for that in my books." 

Here's just hoping they don't take that concept and mess up the execution.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> By gamist I mean that in 4E there is a mechanic behind this whole skill scene which says "after X skill checks the characters win/loose" no matter where in the game world the characters currently are.




How is this different from 3e? 

3e dm says: make an apropriate skill/stat check. If succesful you may leave the city and pursuing guards behind.

4e dm says: make x succesful rolls before y losses. If you do, you have left the guards behind. after x succeses there are no more real obstacles to impede you, until the next encounter happens. You can leave the city

4e just gives rules allowing for more player influence and choice. Seemingly, as we haven't really seen the rules yet.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Or to use a other example
> 4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
> "3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.




The 4e explanation may be more fun and cool (yep i used both of the nono words). continuing the pursuit through narrow alleyways and over rooftops is/may be more fun than "sorry my map says Dead End. roll init". 




			
				Derren said:
			
		

> I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check.




And i like the idea that pc's can influence the story, if they come up with a good explanation and succeed with an apropriate roll. reality smeality. if it works to improve the dramatic cinematic action storytelling (tm), i'll aprove of it.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.




its actually not clear here (though i know your intent) what you think 3e does and what aproach 4e uses. probably because they aren't so different.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> I
> 
> A system like this sounds like it encourages stunts and adjudicates them in a fair manner. Exceptionally good or bad ideas probably receive modifiers to the skill checks (just like every other skill check ever) but overall PCs can be daring and inventive. Roll Arcane to make a simple candle flare and belch out thick clouds of smoke. Roll Intimidate to startle some animals and set off a stampede. Roll Acrobatics to tumble through the street performers that walk on hot coals and juggle swords (wouldn't want to follow you through there!). At least players can attempt all this without being told "I'm sorry Dave, I can't let you do that. I don't have rules for that in my books."
> 
> Here's just hoping they don't take that concept and mess up the execution.




Except that you still don't have rules for that. Your examples are like "make a strength check to turn the cart full of apples over". What this actually does is still not documented in the rules. The only thing turning over a cart of apples in 4E does is that it counts as successful skill check. Turn over 6 carts full of apple and you escaped the guard, even if you are still in the market place standing maybe 40 ft. away from them.
4E doesn't allow the PCs to be more creative in 3E. Everything they can do in 4E they could also do in 3E. It only allows the PCs to make more unnecessary/nonsense things because they don't have to reach an actual goal anymore but just to win a fixed amount of checks.



			
				cwhs01 said:
			
		

> And i like the idea that pc's can influence the story, if they come up with a good explanation and succeed with an apropriate roll. reality smeality. if it works to improve the dramatic cinematic action storytelling (tm), i'll aprove of it.




You can affect the story without rewriting in game reality, especially when they come up with a good explanation and have a good roll. The only difference is that in 3E the explanation must make sense in teh context of the game world while in 4E the game world reshapes itself according to the explanation.







> its actually not clear here (though i know your intent) what you think 3e does and what aproach 4e uses. probably because they aren't so different.




Yes, they are not very different. And that is the problem. There was no real reason to add more gamist  (anti simulationist) elements to skill checks as everything which you can do in 4E you can already do in 3E without having mechanical restrictions.

The difference here is that in 3E when the PCs want to flee the city the goal is to get outside the city. Depending on which way the PCs choose to follow and how good they are this can be resollved by more or less skill checks and maybe some combats. In 4E no matter what the PCs do they get out of the city after X checks, even if they are actually just running in circles (but do that very good).


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> The 4e explanation may be more fun and cool (yep i used both of the nono words). continuing the pursuit through narrow alleyways and over rooftops is/may be more fun than "sorry my map says Dead End. roll init".
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I agree with you.

Maybe there was a magical accident with a ritual in the sewers that collapsed the wall at the dead-end, now there is a hole to jump to potential freedom. The DMs maps just arnt up-to-date, but the streetwise character  heard it in the tavern last night.

Destroying that dead-end creates so many endless possibilities, Derren, cannot you see it? Get rid of that dead end!!



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Except that you still don't have rules for that. Your examples are like "make a strength check to turn the cart full of apples over". What this actually does is still not documented in the rules. The only thing turning over a cart of apples in 4E does is that it counts as successful skill check. Turn over 6 carts full of apple and you escaped the guard, even if you are still in the market place standing maybe 40 ft. away from them.
> 4E doesn't allow the PCs to be more creative in 3E. Everything they can do in 4E they could also do in 3E. It only allows the PCs to make more unnecessary/nonsense things because they don't have to reach an actual goal anymore but just to win a fixed amount of checks.




That example is a players abusing the system and metagaming. That is what the DM is there for. I might not allow the same trick twice.  How many apple carts are there around anyway. Chances are your only going to run into one or two anyway.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Why should there be a princess? And why should the princess value the opinion of the PC more because he climbed a hard wall instead of an easy wall?
> Thats the core problem. With the 4E system the mechanics determine the (in game) reality. "You climbed a hard wall, so there is a princess on the other side" and not the more realistic approach where the situation in the in game reality determine the mechanics like "There is a princess on the other side of this hard to climb wall, do you want to climb it anyway?"




Hey Derren;

I think I get where you're coming from, and it's cool that you know these mechanics are probably not for you.  Let me tell you why I like them.

First of all, when you have a system like this it adds some _focus_ on the actions in the game.  One roll often feels "too small", you know?  _For some climactic encounters, you want to make a couple of rolls, spend more "screen time" on the conflict._

Now, you don't need to make rolls - you could resolve the conflict freeform.  _I like rolling the dice because they are impartial, do a better job of reflecting character ability than *I* can, they add tension because we don't know how the dice are going to roll out, and they often generate surprising results!_

Another thing I like about rolling dice, at least in the way I do it, is that it creates a turning point.  The die roll will resolve the conflict - or at least this little part of it, if we're making a bunch of rolls.  _Each die roll needs to mean something: success (or moving towards the player's goal) or failure (or moving away from the goal)._

Okay, moving on:

We have our conflict in the game reality.  The PCs want to escape from Sembia, and it's not going to be easy.  We know we're going to roll some dice.  Now we get creative and into the game.  The player looks over his sheet, considers the situation, and tries to think of ways he can use his best skills to solve his PC's problems.  This is great, because _it allows the player to really get creative solving the problem - using player skill - but we're still using the character's abilities to determine success._

Now the player tries to use a skill: "I want to use Diplomacy to talk a princess into smuggling me out of Sembia."  The DM considers the situation, and doesn't think this applies - he's in an alley right now, with guards hot on his tail!  He doesn't have the time to sit down for tea.  _The DM is still the guy with the authority to say what the game world is like._  It's good, I think, to have that authority rest in one person.

So the player changes his action: "Okay, I am going to make a Climb check so that I can climb into a princess' garden."  _I like this because as DM, I don't have the entire city statted up - I don't want to have to turn to page whatever to see if a princess lives there, and if one does, would she be in the garden, and if so, what her reaction would be to having a guy drop in on her?  *All of that we can resolve with the Climb check.*_

Resolution can look like this:

If the roll is successful, the PC leaves the guards behind, the princess is there, and the PC can Diplomatize her.  
If it's a failure, she's not there, and the guards gain a little ground.
If it's an easy failure, she's not there, but a mean old crone is.  She triggers an _Alarm_ whistle and the guards zero in on the PC.
If it's an easy success, the princess is there.  (assuming that easy successes don't add to the total successes you need)
If it's a hard success, the princess is there, and she's got a big case of "bad-boy" syndrome.  She sees the PC as a great way to get back at her daddy.
If it's a hard failure - probably the same thing as the normal failure.

Look at what we've done here, in terms of game-play.  In the big success/big failure cases, we've just made the game a lot more interesting.  We've introduced an NPC.  The old crone, you could decide later on, might be someone powerful that the PCs need some help from.  The bad-boy loving princess is a huge source of conflict and adventure!

Okay.  Now let's say we've resolved all our rolls for this extended conflict.  The PC has either failed to escape unseen or succeeded.  But, because it's not a binary condition, _we can interpret the resolution in surprising new ways that can increase tension in the game!_  Look at how the extended conflict resolved in the example of play from above.  _It leads directly to another encounter._  This is great because we see that _the actions the PCs took had consequences._  Nothing adds to a vibrant gaming experience like that!

So, because of the things I've mentioned here, that's why it looks like I'm going to like this system.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Or to use a other example
> 4E: You made your knowledge local check so there is a small, not much known alley in the next side street even though on the city map it is a dead end.
> "3E": You made you knowledge local check so you know that the next side street is a dead end.




If I was running this 4e game, I'd say: "Look, there's a dead-end here on the map.  You can't get through here."

Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"

DM: "No, sorry, there isn't one."*

Player: "Hmm... okay, I'll make a Climb check to get out.  Crap, it's not as good as Streetwise.  Oh well; shouldn't have boxed myself into this corner!  At least I get the +2 bonus from that previous successful check."

DM: "Yeah - that +2 is from you being so quick that you have extra time to climb the wall."


* - I can see the DM saying that there isn't a secret door being a problem, though.  Maybe you could handle it like this:

Player: "Can I make a Streetwise check to see if I remember that there's a secret door there?"

DM: "Sure."  DM knows that there isn't a secret door, but success will mean that he gets a +2 because he doesn't spend any time looking (or he finds something to aid his next roll), while failure means a -2 because he wastes too much time.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.




You don't have to change game reality based on the rolls, though - except for the reality that the PCs have either succeded or failed.  The thing that might be bothering you is that these rolls resolve success, instead of the DM.  Is that the case?


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Destroying that dead-end creates so many endless possibilities, Derren, cannot you see it? Get rid of that dead end!!
> .




The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Hey Derren;
> 
> I think I get where you're coming from, and it's cool that you know these mechanics are probably not for you.  Let me tell you why I like them.
> 
> ...




And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system and a "free form" goal instead of a 6 wins and you are out of the city mechanic.
I am unaware of any 3E rule which says that you can only do one skill check in an entire adventure (or scene if you want to use such terminology).


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system.



 Oh dear.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
> In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.




Your world is in a state of quantum flux until a character turns that corner. You have vague outlines but the successful roll of the player has changed a dead-end into something else. Something with many more story possibilities. 

This is what I see in 4e, more tools to create more stories.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And now tell me why this isn't possible with the 3E skill system and a "free form" goal instead of a 6 wins and you are out of the city mechanic.
> I am unaware of any 3E rule which says that you can only do one skill check in an entire adventure (or scene if you want to use such terminology).




3e skill checks resolve tasks, not conflict or intent.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I favor the "3E" approach where the reality doesn't change just because the PC made a successful skill check. I also favor skill challenges where the PC have to reach a real goal (like getting outside of the city) instead of just having to succeed in X skill checks and then they win no matter where they actually are in the city.



Thanks, I actually finally see where you're coming from.  I disagree with it, of course, but I do understand why you dislike 4e.  4e does change the basis of how the players interact with the game.  In previous editions, players controlled their characters alone.  In 4e, players have the ability to change the scene around the character by the use of various abilities.  While I'm excited by the narrative possibilities this creates, I can sympathize with how this could affect a dedicated simulationist's immersion in his character.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
> In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.




This may be because 4e is less of a computergame than 3e? (better add a smiley to that i guess   )



anyways i think i understand your viewpoint now. i'll explain, but please remember this is just me speculating and describing what i think your stance is. Sorry if i missed your point.
 you prefer for the world (in the hypothetical perfect game) to be  perfectly described and players to react to it. 4e attempts this to a lesser degree than 3e. Now the players can alter the  story/setting/reality with apropriate explanations and rolls, instead of only reacting.

me. i like it the 4e way.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 5, 2008)

Yes, Derren seems to run his game with an ironclad focus on realism. The city has a map. That street is a dead end. Running into it will get you nowhere. 

And that's cool. Nothing wrong with that style of play. It's just not the one 4E uses, nor me for that matter.

The city has no detailed map. I'm not going to work out every street and alley, the entire sewer network, the exact height of every wall and roof. They don't do this in books or movies either. The city of Ankh-Morpork is just sort of there and people walk around in it, but we don't track the exact position of every protagonist on a minimap. Then a PC rolls streetwise. Fail? Damn, he ran into a dead end or other bad place because he doesn't know this area. Succeed? He knows the layout better than the players or DM do, which makes sense. He also knows more about casting spells than we do. It's his world after all. So he found a good way to evade pursuit.


At this point we've all established our playstyles. Derren doesn't like ours. We don't like his. Fine, let's move on.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

cwhs01 said:
			
		

> anyways i think i understand your viewpoint now. i'll explain, but please remember this is just me speculating and describing what i think your stance is. Sorry if i missed your point.
> you prefer for the world (in the hypothetical perfect game) to be  perfectly described and players to react to it. 4e attempts this to a lesser degree than 3e. Now the pc's can alter the  story/setting/reality with apropriate explanations and rolls, instead of only reacting.
> 
> me. i like it the 4e way.




More or less. The world must not be perfectly described, but good enough to feel living instead of just a construct where the PCs can sell loot and turn in quests before going into a dungeon again.

And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.
In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".


----------



## hong (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".




No, it's authorial power.


----------



## mmu1 (Mar 5, 2008)

It's funny... I rarely have every single detail of something like an escape from the city planned out (usually because my players end up having to run from things suddenly and urgently), so I actually create little details on the fly fairly often, to flesh things out, or as a reward if a player comes up with a good idea and backs it up with a skill check.

However, for all that, the 4E "skill challenge" system doesn't appeal to me at all. The whole point of playing an RPG, for me, is to take advantage of situations like these to let things work themselves out without having to resort to some sort of pre-scripted system. The idea that, even before the players have done anything, you decide it will take x number of skill successes before y number of failures take place strikes me as incredibly restrictive and artificial. What happens if the first idea they choose to try is awful, and not only that, they mess up the execution? Despite the fact that the results should be catastrophic, I shrug and say "well, that was bad, but you still have y-1 chances to not mess up?" 

Sure, I can always override any blatantly nonsensical results... but why not do that from the beginning? The fact the DM is the final authority doesn't make bad rules and systems into good ones. It just makes them a waste.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> More or less. The world must not be perfectly described, but good enough to feel living instead of just a construct where the PCs can sell loot and turn in quests before going into a dungeon again.




nothing new in 4e then. 

and sorry if what i said was probably a little to simplified. Just wanted to emphasize what i see as your point of view.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.




I hope i didn't imply it was the only way for players to affect the story. I meant there is now another way they can do it.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".




or 4e gives the players (presumably limited) authoritative power, transferred (stolen?) from the dm. imo a very cool idea. 

btw i really, REALLY (enough to capitalize text) hope for someone who has real knowledge about the rules to actually comment on this whole debacle. just a short "yes 4e has stolen ideas from conflict resolution and narativist indie games" or "no. 4e skill resolution is task resolution as we know it from 3e".

me. i hope for the yes answer


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

mmu1 said:
			
		

> The idea that, even before the players have done anything, you decide it will take x number of skill successes before y number of failures take place strikes me as incredibly restrictive and artificial.




I think that "x successes before y failures" does two things:
1) It's a pacing mechanic.  You know how many rolls, at a minimum, you're going to need.  This will give you some idea of how much focus you're going to have on this encounter.
2) It defines the difficulty.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> What happens if the first idea they choose to try is awful, and not only that, they mess up the execution? Despite the fact that the results should be catastrophic, I shrug and say "well, that was bad, but you still have y-1 chances to not mess up?"




They can't do something so awful that it makes success impossible in the future, that's all.  That's a narrative constraint I can deal with.  (It could make future success impossible if you impose a penalty so large that the DC is out of reach.)

The thing is, the "awfulness" of the idea is pretty much determined by the result of the die roll, and not the DM.  Maybe the DM will be allowed to apply modifiers to the roll or the DC to indicate that he thinks the players are idiots; but if you want the dice to resolve the encounter, let the dice do it, and if you want the DM to resolve the encounter, then let him do it without the meaningless dice rolls.


----------



## smerwin29 (Mar 5, 2008)

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.

3e skills like diplomacy made it almost too easy at times: that hostile guard in now friendly, so he just walks away.  Or it made it too hard: your only chance of escape is to climb the DC 25 wall, so you need to roll a 22 to make it.

The current skill challenge framework will encourage players to use their imaginations, while at the same time providing a rules mechanic to adjudicate it.  And, of course, the final call is always up to the DM.  If the players do something ingenious, she can always just decide they succeed for the entire encounter, or give them more than 1 success.

I had a 50/50 fail to success ratio for that encounter in the games I ran.  We had a lot of roleplaying, a lot of laughing, and some great scenes and in-character actions.  It gave me the flexibility to allow the PCs to do something they are good at, then force them to do something they may not be so good at, all without me having to worry that one decision on my part might ruin everything.

To answer the OP, I handled how things went in a variety of ways, sort of as a test of the system.  Sometimes I gave two or three choices (you can climb boxes to the roof, which is easy, but there is a chance you will be seen; or, you can scale the wall directly so you won't be seen, but it is a tougher climb).  Sometimes I let the PCs select based on easy, medium or hard, with the understanding that there might be consequences for success or failure.  Sometimes I let them tell me what they wanted to do, and I set the difficulty based on the actions described.  Sometimes I forced a specific check at a specific DC based on a corner that PC had painted himself into.  It didn't take long for each table I ran to get into the mindframe needed to make the encounter work.


----------



## WyzardWhately (Mar 5, 2008)

I loved doing stuff like this in Burning Wheel, Spirit of the Century, The Mountain Witch, and plenty of other games.  The major hazard of it is that you have to have players who are pretty much on-board.  It can take a little bit for some people, esp. if they've been playing for a long time, to grok that they have some authorial control all of a sudden and that they must use that power to produce awesome and win.

But once they get a good grip on it, it tends to work pretty well.


----------



## jaer (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
> In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.




This sounds more like a DM decision then a edition decision.  Anyone in 3e could have done the same thing: make a check, there is a secret passage.  In 4e, the same thing could be taken away.

One thing about this encounter that needs to be taken into account was that it was designed to be run in a convention.  It was designed to be run for multiple players by multiple DMS.  Were I to run something similar, I'm sure I would do it very differently then it was at a convention because I would design it specifically for me to run, not so thay 20 people can read a couple sheets and DM the scene for random people.

I can see how this design idea can carry over into something like a Crushing Room trap; each round the wall moves in 5 feet.  In 5 rounds, the PCs are flattened.  A successful str check stops the wall from moving that round.  There is a metal grate in the wall behind which the clockwork mechanisms are clicking away; the grate is too havy to lift, but there is a chain hanging from the ceiling attached to it through a pulley device of some kind.  That might be enough to open the grate.

Someone made a perception check, so the athletic check to climb up the wall is better because the PC noticed a couple footholds in the wall leading toward the chain. A successful moderately difficult climb check would get the character just high enough to reach the chain (a low DC climb check would then require a low DC jump check...someone who wasn't as athletic could try two easy DCs vs 1 moderate DC check if they thought that would benefit them). The PC who is actually climbing decided to go a bit higher, aiming for the harder check.  Having gotten as high as he did, PC was able to get a good grasp of the chain and is in a better position to pull it and hold it (+2 to his str check to pull the chain and open the grate).

With the grate open, the PC disabling the trap isn't squeezing his hands through a grate coated with mild contact poison anymore as he manipulates the mechanism, lowering the DC of the disable device and keeps the character from suffering poison damage. If the Disable device fails, the player can keep trying, so long as the chain holder can keep holding the chain and the wall doesn't advance all the way across the room.

I'm sure there are other skills characters could bring into play to get out of this trap that I haven't though of and planned for.  I would need to be willing to listen to my player's ideas and decide what sort of affect, if any, they have in this situation.  But I wouldn't simply add something becuase my PC decided to search for a secret door and succeed his check.  If it's not there, it's not there.

Could this be done in 3e?  Sure, there is no reason it couldn't.  Use a skill, succeed, and go on to the next skill.  But this was not the design philosophy of 3e.  The philosophy there was that the trap sprung and it either hit or missed or the characters got a save against something.  And then it was over.

The design philosophy in 4e is that things are much more complex and should require several rolls and more character involvment to 'defeat' a challenge.  It's still in the DM's hands to create these challenges as they see fit.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.



That's not what "change reality" means.  4e gives the actual player the ability to change parts of the game world, not just through the actions of the character.  Using a per-encounter martial power, for example, doesn't simply mean your character is attempting the action.  You, as a player, are also controlling the NPC to allow the opportunity for the power to happen.


----------



## smerwin29 (Mar 5, 2008)

I just remembered that the TORG game had a similar mechanic.  At some point of high drama, the game play slowed down and the characters had to deal with a situation.  I think they even had cards (drama deck?) that simulated unexpected obstacles or victories.


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 5, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> This sounds more like a DM decision then a edition decision.  Anyone in 3e could have done the same thing: make a check, there is a secret passage.  In 4e, the same thing could be taken away.
> 
> One thing about this encounter that needs to be taken into account was that it was designed to be run in a convention.  It was designed to be run for multiple players by multiple DMS.  Were I to run something similar, I'm sure I would do it very differently then it was at a convention because I would design it specifically for me to run, not so thay 20 people can read a couple sheets and DM the scene for random people.
> 
> ...




[Thievery check=success]

I am inserting this into one of the 4e adventures.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Mar 5, 2008)

But that is the point - you can lay out the framework for the encounter ahead of time - good ideas, bad ideas, rewards or penalties as appropriate . . . whatever.  With pre-planned encounters, _where the outcome is significantly relevent to the story _ reducing the success or failure of the entire scene to one failed die roll does everyone a dis-service.  It is not fun.  

Imagine if we did that for combat encounters:

Party: "We try to sneak up on the dragon. . ."
DM: "It's your funeral. . . roll against the fighter's sneak skill since his is the lowest."
Party: "13 - he fails."
DM: "The dragon eats you.  Here are some character sheets, 28 pt buy, no Eladrin or Gnomes. . . "


----------



## jaer (Mar 5, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> [Thievery check=success]
> 
> I am inserting this into one of the 4e adventures.





Enjoy!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 5, 2008)

smerwin29 said:
			
		

> I just remembered that the TORG game had a similar mechanic.  At some point of high drama, the game play slowed down and the characters had to deal with a situation.  I think they even had cards (drama deck?) that simulated unexpected obstacles or victories.



Yes, there was something like that in Torg, too. The Drama Deck did a lot of cool fascinating stuff in that game. 
I think instead of acquiring a number of successes, you had to gather cards with "A, B and C", and you had to do it in the right order, and if you didn't succeed soon enough, you failed. But my memory is sketchy - I never owned a single rulebook of that game (my group played it extensively before I became a member, and afterwards, it was a rare situation). Torg had a lot of good "gamist" ideas...


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

smerwin29 said:
			
		

> I ran "Escape from Sembia" at DDXP, and while I cannot talk in great detail about skill challenges, I can say some things:




Cool. Some good comments from someone who actually knows what they are talking about is allways nice  

and it seems that the skill check system is flexible enough to cater for both the simulationsists and the narativists. I guess we'll have to find some new thing about 4e to discuss...


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

Just ignoring everything which was introduced with 4E is not what I call flexible.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 5, 2008)

Hehe well I don't care about those simulationist people I'm philosophically opposed to them anyway. But as for narrativism it cerrtainly seems like a great system to use. It almost feels like a storybook.


----------



## Andur (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren, though I do appreciate your bending of reality to suit your own needs, you do need to remain within the realms of logic.



> The difference here is that in 3E when the PCs want to flee the city the goal is to get outside the city. Depending on which way the PCs choose to follow and how good they are this can be resollved by more or less skill checks and maybe some combats. In 4E no matter what the PCs do they get out of the city after X checks, even if they are actually just running in circles (but do that very good)




I'm sorry who is the DM?  Who decides if the skill checks are relevant or not?  Not sure about you, but I don't DM like a scripted AI bot in a 'puter game.



> The problem is that with the 4E version this dead end is only not there when the PCs succeed in a knowledge check. If they fail its still a dead end.
> In 3E the dead end is either there or not and the PCs either know about it or they don't. But the game world does not change depending on their skill check.




So is a secret door there or not if the players fail on a search check?  I mean, the secret door is not on the map, so no matter what there is no way the players can discover it, correct?

A dead end alley in which people have cut away the fence, dug under the wall, made a hole in and covered up with some empty boxes, none of those exist in the real world either.  The PC's running down a street and can see the alleyways off to the sides, either one of them knows about the "little known" passage or they don't. Either way the maps are going to show it as a dead end.

You as the DM decide how many and what skill checks are to be made in order to accomplish the goal.  If player's actions run counter to the goal, well then they simply don't succeed.  (Make 4 running checks to get away, ok, I run around the fountain.  You get caught as the guards don't pursue and you run straight into them)

What 4e seems to be doing is giving a system in which players can be fairly rewarded for accompishing tasks, whether that task is bashing skulls, rubbing elbows, or running minefields doesn't matter.  The Dm decides how difficult it will be (thus what the reward will be) and the rules help outline ways the players can succeed or fail, notice outline, not map.

Common sense and Rule 0 go a long, long way in DMing...


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Just ignoring everything which was introduced with 4E is not what I call flexible.




Go back and read smervin29's last post. He gave a handful of examples of how you could use the new skill system.
I might be reading you wrong, but are you implying it is a bad thing that the skill system can be used in various different ways? I get it if you want one solid system for handling skill checks that can/should never be deviated from. But i think the better system is one that is flexible (as implied in this report of the system in actual use).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 5, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> I'm sorry who is the DM?  Who decides if the skill checks are relevant or not?  Not sure about you, but I don't DM like a scripted AI bot in a 'puter game.



So all the talk about D&D becoming like an MMO is wrong? But it must be true, I read it on the internet!


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> More or less. The world must not be perfectly described, but good enough to feel living instead of just a construct where the PCs can sell loot and turn in quests before going into a dungeon again.
> 
> And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.
> In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".




I think it's unrealistic from your point of view, but from my point view it's a great development, because it means the PC's drive the story, no one else.

It means that the PC's are in charge of what happens to them - if they choose to use their good skills in creative ways to overcome the challenges set to them they'll have a good chance of suceeding, whether the DM has prepared for it or not.

It's the same with Healing Surges and other new mechanics - in each case the mechanic places the PC's at the centre of the story, not the world. I think it's a great move, and will strongly aid a more flexible and faster paced story.

Instead of having to plan each challenge to let the PC's shine in it, you can simply throw stuff at the PC's and let them deal with it.

An example in 3.5e:

"How are you going to get the information you need on the location of the hidden Temple?"
"Um...we ask the rogue to use his Gather Information and the Cleric casts a Divination."

Only two characters are involved. It's very unlikely the Fighter (or melee character) is going to have any applicable skills, or good enough ranks in them for it to matter.

In 4e:
"How are you going to get the information you need on the location of the hidden Temple?"
"Cleric asks at the Temple, Fighter uses Diplomacy at the Watch House, Rogue walks the streets looking for suspicious characters, and the Wizard hits the library for clues!"

Several characters are involved, all with a decent level of skill in what they're trying to do, and if a couple roll badly other characters can pick up the slack.


----------



## kclark (Mar 5, 2008)

I like how it engages the players to be active participants in the collective storytelling.
I think that anything that actively engages the players is a positive thing. Combat is a very actively engaging portion of the game and I think that is why some people focus on combat (myself included) so much more than other parts of the game. The uncertainty of what can be done or even how to progress is a stumbling block for those who are not very immersive role players. These skill resolution guidelines give a clean and quick guide of how to handle conflicts that can be incredibly complex, while still retaining the active participation of everyone at the table.

Recalling the social skill structure that the wotc folks had hinted at, it looks like this is going to be it. They had mentioned that you could go purely roll oriented, role play before the roll, role play after and based on the roll, or like in any game ignore any roll and go with pure role play. This type of skill resolution systems lends itself to that very well.


----------



## 1of3 (Mar 5, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> I find the concept of skill wagers interesting, and is apparently used in some other RPGs.  Anyone else have any experience with such a system?




I'm a bit supprised that D&D wants to take this way, but you're right. There are several games like that. Inspectres even builds whole "jobs" (~ adventures) that way: Get 14 successes and you solved the case.

Some games are even more extreme than what has been described here. That is, you can make a Diplomacy check on an empty street:

_Player1: I roll Diplomacy. Hard. *rolls* 32. *IC* To the left comrades!
Player2: We need to go right.
Player1: You would be right, of course, but I called in a few favors two hours ago. Someone's waiting there._

I don't expect D&D to go so far, though.


This approach in general usually needs less GM authority. Any roll that makes remote sense can be applied.  To me as a GM that is less work and more entertainment as the players have to think up all the hard stuff.


----------



## Benimoto (Mar 5, 2008)

I generally like the skill check system.  I have some reservations about the easy/normal/hard checks and how they affect your future checks, but generally I like it.

It's not purely simulationist, but it admits that some parts of any system aren't going to be well modeled.  So for the example of tipping over a cart of apples, it admits that in any system, there's no more than a vague mechanic that models the effects of tipped apples on human-sized pursuers.  So you just call it a success and move on.  Trying to break everything down into separate, precisely modeled skill checks runs into Zeno's paradox.  If you try to precisely define and model everything, there's no limit on where you can stop.  At some level or another, it's all an abstraction, and the system admits it.

And it's no more a case of the players changing reality than everything else in the game.  If the players go somewhere that's not on the map, or is just an abstract street shape on the map, then they are changing reality, as the DM describes the new location.  The difference in this system is that the DM takes the results of the player's skill check into account rather than just making things up by himself.  It's something new to wrap your head around, and if you don't like it, you don't like it.  But it's not fundamentally different than the way things work in all RPGs ever.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 5, 2008)

My only difficulty is envisioning what an easy, medium, and hard version of certain tasks looks like, and how to encompass failure.  There may be rules for this, but I don't know them, and I'm not sure exactly what they'd be.

Lets say we have a wall.  The fighter wants to climb the wall.  Tell me if or where I go wrong.

If he says "easy," and succeeds, he clambers over the wall noisily, clumsily and slowly, but he makes it.

If he says "easy" and he fails, he can't climb the wall this round.

If he says "medium" and succeeds, he gets over the wall.

If he says "medium" and fails, what?  If he fails by less than 5, should he get to climb the wall as if he had succeeded at the "easy" task?  If he fails by more than 5, does he fail as if he failed at the "easy" task?

If he says "hard" and succeeds, he climbs over the wall with skill and panache.

If he says "hard" and fails, what?  If he would have succeeded at a lower level, does he succeed anyways?  Or is it considered that his attempts at skill and panache made him screw the whole thing up, and he can't climb the wall at all?

What if the wall isn't an easy wall to climb?  Am I expected to set a minimum DC?

I assume there has to be some degree of objective skill DCs still in the system, or else there'd be no point in having skills increase as you go up in level.  If everything was just 11/15/19 adjusted by level at the same rate your skill level adjusted, there'd be no point in adjusting either.

So... I like the "x success/ y failure" system.  I also like letting characters choose a higher DC to accomplish a task with particular style.  I just don't get the wager system quite so easily, nor do I understand how DCs are set.  I can envision tasks where it works well (Diplomacy- the difficulty you choose could be relative to what you're trying to negotiate out of the person), but I can also envision tasks where it does not because objective reality doesn't permit "easy" or for that matter "hard" versions of the task.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

Multiple people said:
			
		

> I'm sorry who is the DM?  Who decides if the skill checks are relevant or not?  Not sure about you, but I don't DM like a scripted AI bot in a 'puter game.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Common sense and Rule 0 go a long, long way in DMing...




Imo when the most sensible things to do is to houserule a rule, then this rule is a failure. So saying "You can houserule it to make sense" doesn't really proof that this is a good rule.



> but are you implying it is a bad thing that the skill system can be used in various different ways?




And this can't be done with the 3E skill system or any other skill system where you don't have to give +2 bonuses for hard skill challenges and have a predetermined number of skill checks independent from the actual situation? Why exactly do you need them?







> > I think it's unrealistic from your point of view, but from my point view it's a great development, because it means the PC's drive the story, no one else.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## glass (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Imo when the most sensible things to do is to houserule a rule, then this rule is a failure. So saying "You can houserule it to make sense" doesn't really proof that this is a good rule.



None of us have actually seen the rule*, but if the it works how we think it works, deciding which skill checks are appropriate and which are not is excplicitly the role of the DM. It is not a houserule to adjudicate things the RAW explicitly call on you to adjudicate!



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The PCs can still drive the story without the reality reshaping itself after every skill check. They just have to be a bit more smart and pay more attention.



Reality never changes in response to skill check. It might become defined where previously it was undefined. If you, as a DM, always have reality defined then that use will not be applicable.


glass.

(*Apart from those as have and can't talk about it)


----------



## jaer (Mar 5, 2008)

From my reading, the main problem with the idea was presentation.

In Derren's example, the idea that a PC ran down an alley and it was a dead-end.  He rolled streetwise check, succeeded, and suddenly knew of a hidden escape route through that alley.  Even if that is what happened in the Sembia run (I don't recall seeing this example, specifically), I don't think this is how most DMs would run it or how 4E would handle it.

I do recall someone saying they made a streetwise check and recalled an old sewer system they could use to duck out of the city.  This doesn't mean they found it that round and ducked down it.  It could just mean that they had another option...the front gate which would be gaurded and require more effort to get through or the sewer, which was closer and easier.

Now were I running something like this, that check wouldn't count into their successes unless the players decided to head to the sewer.  And now their route through the city would be different, with different options and obstacles than if they were heading to the front gate.

The skill check does not necessarily change reality.  One of my players can't simply declare he's tipping over a merchant's cart and roll a strength check to do so if there is no cart there to tip. Yeah, the +2 bonus after succeeding a difficult DC check doesn't always follow logic, but that isn't new to 4e...3e had them in the form of circumstance bonuses/penalties that were dolled out at the DM's whim...no other guideline than that!  Guess what?  These are at a DM's whim, too!

In the case of the cart, I would say if the person succeeded a hard DC, they not only tipped the cart over, but sent it spewing it's contents all over the place, making it harder for the guards to dodge by it or jump over it: count the squares around the cart as difficult terrain.

None of this is an example in how 4e handles things differently than 3e, it's all in how the DM decides to play the action, and can happen both ways in both editions.  I wouldn't have a PC get a +2 on a diplomacy check after the hard climb check, but it might have been a hard climb check because it was up a particularly high wall from which a couple members of the local thieves guide were hanging out, watching the action, and waiting for a moment to take advantage (perhaps after the guards were gone round the corner, they'd start 'helping' the merchant pick up the spilled goods!).

In this case, however, the Rogues wouldn't just appear because the hard check was made.  I'd have planned for them to be there when I designed the encounter, and would allow for a free check to try to get them to help.  Failure does not count against you (they aren't ging to alert the guards to your presence!), but a success would help you.

But again, this entire Escape scenario was meant to be a quick and easy module, set up as an example of the difference in skill-use and encounter-design philosophy from 3e to 4e.  It was meant to be relatively simple to learn for both players and DMs.  I think the whole basis is to show a skill-based encounter (which were not highlighted in 3e at all) not a combat-based encounter.  Combat-based encouters have a time limit though - there are only so often players can hit and miss before combat ends one way or the other.

A skill-based encounter could go on for hours unless an artificial end-point is placed on it, such as 6 success or 4 fails.  The players could run around in circles, dodging guards the enitre way, making the police force look like fools and never leave the city.

As a DM, I can deal with my players doing that (fairly or unfairly as I see fit).  I can set the DCs however I want.  At a convention, the game needs to support some sort of automatic ending so that the DM has a way of fairly ending the scenario (it's in his rules to end it at X time).

The 6/4 (Craw Wurm!) set-up in Escape from Sembia was very gamist because the situation (it being played at a convention), not the edition, demands it.  Whether this is a standard rule in 4e, just a suggestion for new DMs, or not even in the books at all, we won't know until the books are out of WotC confirms this.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Cleric rolls religion: "You remember the customs of this local temple and know whom to address: 1 success
> Fighter rolls diplomacy: "You manage to exchange some war stories with the captain of the watch and become friends with him" 1 success
> Rogue rolls perception: "You see someone sneaking behind some buildings" 1 success
> Wizard rolls Gather Information(?): "You find an old, withered map of this area" 1 Success
> ...




Helpful Player: How about this?  

The Cleric sees hidden signs in the street, and follows them.  He meets up with the Fighter along the way, and with the advice from the watch captain we know where to narrow our search.  We see the Rogue kicking back on a street corner, and he tells us of the sneaky guy.  I recognize his garb as belonging to the Temple.

Then the Wizard shows up with a map.  We check it out, and one building stands out to us: it must be the Temple!

Maybe next time we should resolve our rolls in succession, so each one builds off the other.  What do you think, DM?

DM: Shut up and play.  Don't try to bring logic into this! 



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The PCs succeed after X skill rolls, no matter what those rolls where and what information they actually gathered. Of course the DM can say that some rolls do not count, but then you don't need this new, restricting 4E mechanic.




Those rolls determine if the PCs find the Temple or not.  The skills they use determine how.  The DM can say some rolls do not count, of course; I personally find that really annoying, blocking behaviour.


----------



## jaer (Mar 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> My only difficulty is envisioning what an easy, medium, and hard version of certain tasks looks like, and how to encompass failure.  There may be rules for this, but I don't know them, and I'm not sure exactly what they'd be.
> 
> Lets say we have a wall.  The fighter wants to climb the wall.  Tell me if or where I go wrong.




Not that I know for sure, but I think your assumption that you can pick 3 DCs just to climb over the same wall is where you went wrong.  If all you are trying to get over a wall, it's DC X as set by the DM in relation to the wall's characteristics.  Not every skill check needs a level of complexity greater than "make the roll and either succeed or fail."

In the Escape from Sembia run, I would imagine the choice in DC denotes three different walls to climb: there is an Easy Wall, the Medium Wall, and the Hard Wall.

The Easy Wall has handholds and wooden supports you can grasp.  Because it is an easy climb, if you failed, it must have been due to a disaster, such as one of the wooden beams breaking as you held it and pulled yourself up.  You fall and are prone (and take some damage too), this is the "failue penalty" of not making the easy climb DC.

The Medium Wall is slightly higher and rocky.  Failing it just means you did not get up it.  Success means you are over it (or on it...whatever).

The Hard Wall is much higher and smoother, much more difficult to climb, but once you are up it, you have a good view of the city (+2 of perception check), can move more easily to the adjoining buidlings (+2 to jump the the next building over which is slightly lower), or end up meeting some other folks already up on that roof (as in my rogue example previously stated).

I can also see where it being the same wall matters in some way, such as in my previous example of the cruching wall trap earlier in this thread.

The easy DC means you climbed as high as you thought necessary in order to jump for the chain.  In order to get the chain, you need the low DC climb and the low DC jump.  This is for people who aren't athletic and think they will have more luck on two easy checks then one higher one.  If you succeed both, you got the chain.  Next round, you can make a strength check to pull it, or one of your companions can grab and pull it this round.  Failure on either means you are back on the group and that ends your turn...the wall moves closer to splattering the party.

The medium DC means you got high enough to reach the chain.  Make a str check to pull it.  Failure means you slipped before you got there.  Your round is over.

The hard DC means you got high enough to not only reach the chain to pull it, but wrap the length around your arm a few times and really get a good hold.  +2 to the strength check to pull it and +4 to hold it.  If you failed, you slipped down before you made it and your round is over (or perhaps allow for a dex check to grab the chain as you fell; success means you managed to grab the chain just like in option one and either a companion can pull it this round or you can pull it next round, no bonus on strength check).

In this case, it is the same wall you are climbing, but the DC varience represents a difference in the actual climb: your choice in how far up the wall.  This choice also affects the outcome of your following action: grabbing and pulling the chain.

Just my opinion, but it doesn't seem necessary or streamlined to always have three difficulty options for a skill check nor to have set DCs for those options under all circumstances.  I think that was all designed to make Escape from Sembia easier on players and DMs.


----------



## mneme (Mar 5, 2008)

*sigh*

As LostSoul mentioned, it's a CONFLICT RESOLUTION system.  Looks like a pretty good one, too.

In a task resolution system, the GM can run the game in circles as the PCs solve task after task, none of which, it turns out, are relevant to their actual goals.  In a conflict resolution system, rolls relevant to the conflict contractually move the conflict forward or backward; it's not "unrealistic" -- it's the rules.

If the x vx y system is "unrealistic", so are hit points -- because both are conflict-resolution abstractions which sacrifice granularity for the ability of players to see how well they are doing and measure how much what they're trying will accomplish their goals.

If anything, Darren appears to be equating the system to a specific style of illusionism -- where if you make a skill check, the universe favors you, if you fail, it opposes you.  In fact, however, that style of illusionism has always been around and is far -more- harmful without a structure like this.  Moreover, it is entirely possible to run this style of system without any such illusionism, having current position indicate what is, and isn't an interesting skill check.

3.5, The players try to find a pie:
    Illusionism: Players roll Knowlege(local) to find a pie.  Since the GM doesn't want them having a pie, if they succeed, they'll find out there aren't any pies in town; if they fail, they can't figure out where the pies are (but the villains still get pie).
   Detailism: The GM has decided there is no pie in town.  If the players succeed, they find out there aren't any pies in town.  If they fail, they get no useful info.  Either way, it's a waste of time.

4e: the players try to find a pie:
   Illusionism: Players roll Streetwise to find a pie.  If they succeed, they get closer to the pie (the GM has accepted the challenge, so there must be pie as a possibility).  If they fail, there is no pie where they're looking, and they waste time.
   Detailism: There is no pie in town.  If they players succeed, they get closer to finding the pie (ie, they learn there is no pie HERE and learn where pie might be, and can use appropriate skills (like riding) to progress further).  If they fail, they waste time looking for a pie here, and the skills needed to find a pie remain approximately the same, as the situation hasn't changed.

In 3.5, succeeding on one part of a complex skill check means you've...improved things.  Or maybe not, if the GM doesn't want you to.  In 4e, you know how much you've improved things, and narration should move you that much toward your goal, or worstened things, and narration should move you that much further toward -failing- your goal.  But it's just a rule -- like Hit Points.
 Do you complain "Hey, that axe blow to the arm shouldn't have taken me toward dying -- all my other wounds were from magic which already disabled that arm, so it doesn't make any sense that I could still take damage there?"


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 5, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> My only difficulty is envisioning what an easy, medium, and hard version of certain tasks looks like, and how to encompass failure.  There may be rules for this, but I don't know them, and I'm not sure exactly what they'd be.
> 
> Lets say we have a wall.  The fighter wants to climb the wall.  Tell me if or where I go wrong.




I'll tell you what I would do.

The first thing we need to know is why the fighter wants to climb the wall.  If there's no conflict, then whatever.  He succeeds.  So let's assume there is a conflict: the Fighter wants to climb the wall because he wants to get away from the city guard.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> If he says "easy," and succeeds, he clambers over the wall noisily, clumsily and slowly, but he makes it.
> 
> If he says "easy" and he fails, he can't climb the wall this round.




Looks good.  I'd also throw something extra in there on a failure, describing how the city guard is getting closer to him, closing down his options.  Something like, "There he is!  Grab him!"



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> If he says "medium" and succeeds, he gets over the wall.
> 
> If he says "medium" and fails, what?




He doesn't climb over the wall.  The city guard closes in on him, but it's not as bad - "As you slip from the wall, you hear footsteps of the guard coming from around the corner.  'I think I saw him go down here,' you hear one of the men say."



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> If he says "hard" and succeeds, he climbs over the wall with skill and panache.
> 
> If he says "hard" and fails, what?  If he would have succeeded at a lower level, does he succeed anyways?  Or is it considered that his attempts at skill and panache made him screw the whole thing up, and he can't climb the wall at all?




If he succeeds, I'd describe how he gains that much more ground.  He climbs the wall, then spots the guard running down the street the wrong way.

If he fails, he doesn't climb the wall.  Same deal as with the normal check failure.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> What if the wall isn't an easy wall to climb?  Am I expected to set a minimum DC?




I'd modify the DC that he's trying to hit - the harder it is to climb, the more the DC is raised.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> I just don't get the wager system quite so easily, nor do I understand how DCs are set.  I can envision tasks where it works well (Diplomacy- the difficulty you choose could be relative to what you're trying to negotiate out of the person), but I can also envision tasks where it does not because objective reality doesn't permit "easy" or for that matter "hard" versions of the task.




I am guessing that DCs are going to be set by the opposition.  It's probably based on a Defense score or an opposed Passive skill (either of which should be easy to come up with once you decide what "level" the challenge is).  That Defense is then modified for Easy/Hard checks - looks like +/- 4.

Then, when you get down in the nitty-gritty of the task (ie. the Climb check), you modify the DC based on the in-game conditions.  If it's raining, and the wall is slick?  Let's raise the DC by 2.  If the wall is crumbling, full of easy handholds?  Let's lower the DC by 2.  You get the picture.


----------



## cdrcjsn (Mar 5, 2008)

To me it seems that this conflict resolution system favors DMs who like to wing it.  

DMs that like to have every detail written down will probably not like it.

Going back to 4E's stated goal of making adventures easier to create for the DM, I can easily see why they went this route.

Frankly, back in the days when I had hours upon hours to create maps, towns and NPCs, I wouldn't bother using this system.  I would just ignore this rule option and play the game like I've always done.

Now that I don't have quite as much free time, anything that will shave time from planning an adventure is welcome.

However, I think this system will definitely penalize DMs who can't think quickly on their feet.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 5, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> Now that I don't have quite as much free time, anything that will shave time from planning an adventure is welcome.
> 
> However, I think this system will definitely penalize DMs who can't think quickly on their feet.




Another way to look at it is that this system *trains* DMs to think quickly on their feet.

Derren isn't wrong that you could do the same thing in 3E.  The difference is, in 3E absolutely no guidance or support is provided by the system.  4E holds the DM's hand and teaches him how to think on his feet by encouraging the players to come up with ideas (so the DM just has to say yes or no).


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 5, 2008)

*sighs* Now, wouldn't it be great if when I put someone on my ignore list then I also didn't see any posts quoting that person?

Anyway, I think the new skill resolution system will be just perfect for my preferred way of DMing the game. A city in my game consist of 3-5 sentences plus a short list of the names of important npcs. I don't have to 'change reality' when a character finds a hidden back alley because I never decided if there would be one or not!

I also firmly believe in rewarding ingenious ideas and good roleplaying. In fact, I remember having used a similar system in my 3E campaign twice in the past without thinking about turning it into a 'system'. Having some play-tested guidelines will make it easier for me to use it with more reliable results and better adjudicate the outcome without the danger of making an unbalanced decision.

If players surprise me with something I didn't think of, I go with it. If I believe that an approach has a reasonable chance of success, I'll let them give it a try and see where it gets them. If I believe something to be impossible, it'll still fail. But I will always try to give my players the benefit of doubt.
In other words: I try to be the DM I'd like to have when I'm a player. 

I don't particularly care about a DM who isn't able or willing to improvise. A DM who is set on the decisions he made beforehand and will not waver from his pre-determined path discourages creativity in players and basically limits roleplaying to trivial situations. If I don't get to have a noticable effect on the storyline (except maybe by affecting the outcome of combats), I'd rather read a novel.


----------



## Derren (Mar 5, 2008)

This "rule" is a good guideline when it has no mechanics attached to it, but as a rule it is simply silly. It might be a help for DMs who don't prepare but even when you wing it you can think about the situation logically instead of saying X successful rolls and the PCs achieved the goal no matter where those rolls would actually carry the PCs or are even appropriate. As soon as you start to say that some rolls are not appropriate then you can throw this system away and to it "manually".
Does this lead to railroading? Not when the DM stays neutral. The world exists the way it does because it makes sense no matter if in the actual situation it would favor or hurt the PCs. That way the PCs can influence and interact with the world better than with the X success system because then the reactions to what the PCs do are not influenced by any intention and the world around them reacts more "naturally" to the actions of the PCs.

That this seems to become a rule instead of a guideline imo shows how 4E is "dumbing down" D&D. Don't think what you should do to achieve your goal but instead just throw some dice and collect successes.


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren: On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.
D&D has always had an issue with skill systems -- we accept the abstraction of random rolls and loose definitions of actual occurrences in combat, because there is a large element of luck there and the point of the game is to kill bad people and take their awesome stuff (and tends to be played in large part by nonviolent dorkytypes who wouldn't know a Beretta from a Belt Sander. This does not mean that they're the _only_ type that plays, though!).

However, we tend to want to be able to play the skills directly (using our own knowledge), which interacts badly with the intelligence characteristics D&D characters have. This also interact badly with the definition of "roleplaying game"; in that my character knows more about skinning a deer than I do, more about courtly forms of speech than I do, and more about his home city than I do. However, I know more about how to drive than he does, more about the Java programming language than he does, and so on.

This means that we're schizophrenic, and on the one hand want to allow characters' skills to substitute for players' skills, and on the other want to allow players' roleplaying to be be encouraged (which means rewarding characters and players for the players' skills).

So: To escape from the city, you need to get outside the walls. Maybe the DM has a plan (there's a dungeon in the sewers OR a series of guards to bribe/sweettalk past OR an unmanned section of wall during a storm). Maybe the players want some agency. Maybe the players want to be able to contribute to the game, don't see the party mage as the wall-climbing type, or otherwise want to be able to play -- and roleplay their characters -- too.

This lets them do that, and encourages a lot more complexity of individual action and roleplaying than previous editions.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 5, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> (Why should climbing a hard to climb wall give you a bonus to your next diplomacy check?).




Because once you get to the roof, you run into an NPC Rogue who was also hiding up there.  Impressed with your skills at climbing, he offers to help you hide from the guards (this is where the diplomacy check comes in, +2).

To me, it seems like the skill checks remove the game map.  Where a combat encounter basically forces you to use a battle map (with measurements in squares, strange and specific movement rules, etc.), the skill system seems to remove you from this and allows the players and DM to improv.

If you were still using that map, and using it to scale, there might not be an ally to duck into, because the map is not drawn with one.  Making a hard Perception check, the DM can improvise and say you see an ally to your left, and you can duck into it to make your escape.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 5, 2008)

LostSoul, because of your descriptions and posts in this thread, I have gone from "mildly interested in the new skill challenge system" to "absolutely in love with the new system". Also, I have started getting countless ideas about how to put this kind of system to good use. Thank you.

Anyways, here are a few good examples I can think of for individual checks and situations:


Example 1: Player making diplomacy check with a guard who is supposed to be capturing you (maybe because the guard has been ordered to do so by a corrupt king?), to convince him that you are really the good guy.

Normal: The guard is a normal, dedicated guard, and a good man. Success means the guard is willing to let you escape, and you have one less guard chasing you. Failure means he continues to try to capture you, and more guards might come.

Easy: The guard happens to be a corrupt guard, and you have evidence that can prove his misdeeds. Success means that you blackmail him into letting you escape. Failure means that he becomes desperate to kill you and seize the evidence you hold.

Hard: The guard happens to be the guard _captain_, an honest man loyal to his king. Success means that he will let you escape, and the seeds of doubt in his king have been sown in his heart. Failure means he will continue to try to capture you.


Example 2: Player making a stealth check while running with his allies from a mob of guards.

Normal: You try to blend in with the crowd. Success means the guards begin to lose track of you. failure means they can still follow you.

Easy: You ditch your comrades and duck into an alley. Success means you hide from the guards. Failure means they spot you _and_ you are now isolated from the group.

Hard: You jump out in front of the guards, shout "Try and catch me!", run away from the group, and then try to hide after luring some of the guards away. Success means you successfully hide, and many guards get lost in town chasing after your shadow. Failure means they continue chasing you and your team (maybe they just ignore you?).


Example 3 (Theoretical Modern edition ): You are trying to find information on some ancient relic using some kind of research skill, with some kind of time limitation (opposing group also looking for the same information?).

Normal: You look up some records at the local library. Success means you find reliable information, failure means you waste time fruitlessly.

Easy: You do an internet search. Success means you find a website with good information. Failure means you find spam and bad information invented by a twelve-year old (and believe it!).

Hard: You dig out the original manuscript of a text from a Library's special collections and re-translate it yourself. Success means you find _good_ information. Failure means that you wasted your time.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 6, 2008)

Depending on exactly how skill challenges work when you're actively competing against NPCs (like the "running from the town guard" example vs. "researching an ancient temple"), the increased-difficulty-leads-to-bonus might also represent your taking an action that makes your task tougher but also makes it harder for your opponent to follow you. The new World of Darkness system uses this sort of mechanic in its foot chase rules, where you can take a penalty on your roll to force the other person to take a like penalty on theirs, representing things like breaking stride to kick over a garbage can or slam a door behind you.

To use the wall example, maybe there's a market stall against the wall that provides handholds (Easy check). If you're feeling cocky, maybe as you clamber up the stall you deliver a few good kicks and partially collapse it. This ups the DC to Difficult (both because you're destroying your own handholds and because you're "losing time" breaking stuff instead of getting the Hells out of Hommlett).

Granted, that explanation makes more sense if a skill challenge involves opposed rolls, but if it _is_ an abstracted system where only the PCs roll, then a bonus to your next check is functionally equivalent. Either way, I'm very interested to see the full text of this system, because it sounds like what we're hearing from D&DXP is only the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 6, 2008)

There was actually a sample 4e adventure involving vampires that WoTC released awhile back. It had very lilttle crunch and was mostly about roleplaying and interesting characters, but it did have some minor stuff on social skill challenges.

Each character had a couple skills that we considered apropriate to use against them in a social challenge. I think it was usually diplomacy, intimidate and gather info, but at least one character was hard headed and reacted very poorly to intimidate attempts I think. There may have been others with other restrictions.

So this implies that it's not just about making up whatever skill you want and using it to "change reality" or to climb up a wall to improve your diplomacy check. It's more about using the skills that are apropriate to the situation, which are presumably laid out in the module or by the DM.

Presumably a skill challenge could even involve a scripted set of taks and changing scenarios, which could even involve a mandaotry streetwise check to avoid that dead end.....


----------



## Peter LaCara (Mar 6, 2008)

For the record, this kind of system isn't gamist at all. It is, in fact, a narrative system, which is probably why the simulationists are still reacting badly to it.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 6, 2008)

Nymrohd said:
			
		

> 3E provides no guidelines at its core in handling such an encounter neither does it provide a good way to estimate XP for said encounter, something that 4E likely does?



CR is actually a really good way to estimate XP rewards for encounters, combat and non-combat alike.  The 2e DMG talked about xp rewards for completing goals and whatnot, but there was really no guideline there at all.  3e and 4e both have an average XP per encounter value that can be used.  And I'll bet 4e's non-combat reward structure isn't any different from, say, giving players XP for defeating an equal-level encounter, adjusted up or down for the difficulty and/or importance.


----------



## Artellan (Mar 6, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> LostSoul, because of your descriptions and posts in this thread, I have gone from "mildly interested in the new skill challenge system" to "absolutely in love with the new system". Also, I have started getting countless ideas about how to put this kind of system to good use. Thank you.



I second that, LostSoul your posts in this thread have been pure gold!


----------



## Spatula (Mar 6, 2008)

So, it sounds like 4e has a encounter design advice for skill-based, instead of combat-based, encounters.  Sounds cool, not really anything new or something that you can't already do, but it should be helpful to newbie DMs.  Derren's complaints are bit overboard - no DM, or very very few DMs in any case, has an exact map of everywhere the PCs end up, with precise notes on NPCs locations & attitudes, guard patrol paths, etc.  You're always going to be winging things to some extent and inventing aspects of the gameworld in response to the players' actions.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 6, 2008)

I played the "Escape from Sembia" adventure and the DM did a magnificent job of showing the strengths of the 4e system.  The best part of this "scene" was that it was interactive and it required the involvement of the whole party.  We were encouraged to play to the character's strength.

Our goal was to Escape from the town without getting caught.  We were allowed to play the scene completely free-form.  

We all rolled initiative and in initiative order each player decided which of the 3 paths to escape they would follow:  Marketplace, Crowded Street, or Dark Alley.  Once in their "path" they decided what they would do to get away from the guards without getting caught.

Our Ranger, Paladin, fighter and warlock decided to go for the marketplace, the cleric decided to head into the crowded street, and the wizard decided to use his racial advantages for stealth in the dark alley.

The paladin saw a man holding some horses and talked the man (Diplomacy) into allowing him to get close to the animals by getting in their saddle bags.  The man laughed heartily but allowed the paladin to do so.  So the halfling climbed into a sack and attempted to hide.  He rolled pretty good and gained our group a success.

The ranger saw an open stall and stood on it yelled for the crowd, "fellow citizens, come see great feats of acrobatics!"  Performed a somersault and as he landed tossed some coins into the street, catching the attention of the crowd and getting them all in the way of the guards.  He aced that roll with a 29 (max).  That gave him a success.  

The warlock saw the opportunity and used the distraction of the crowd to attempt to conceal himself near a stall.  He rolled well and the DM granted him a bonus due to the impressive success of the previous player in capturing the attention of the crowd (circumstance bonus).

The fighter used her strength to tip over a stall as she ran through and with the distraction of the crowd ducked into a nearby stall.  She succeeded (STR check) and garnered us another success.

The wizard moved stealthily though the alley trying to avoid the guards.  He also succeeded and got us another success.

Then it was the cleric's turn, he looked at his sheet and noticed that he did not have good diplomacy or bluff, so he asked the DM if he could attempt to gather support from the crowd by using Religion instead.  The DM agreed and gave him a slight penalty on the circumstance bonus.  The cleric rolled poorly in addition to the penalty and we got our first failure.  He also angered the crowd making it more difficult for him to escape.

The paladin attempted to hide and failed.  Second failure.

The DM used our passive perception scores to clue us in to the trouble in the crowded street nearby. 

The ranger, warlock and fighter got some more successes.  The wizard also noticed the problems in the crowded street and stealthily moved in that direction.  The cleric attempted to convince the crowd that his god indeed did not suck and failed miserably again.  Now the whole situation was turning sour.  The group in the market place was going to escape but the cleric was going to be caught.  The warlock used stealth and his powers to create fiery diversions for the cleric while hiding on a nearby rooftop.  The rest of the party moved towards the crowded street to assist the cleric.  The Ranger performed another sommersault held out his hand as if he was going to toss coins, yelled "come see my next performance in the crowded street!" and used his fey step to teleport enough to be out of view of the crowd.  The crowd followed to the crowded street and the warlock was able to provide enough distractions for the cleric to get away.

That was a scene to behold and all the player's got involved.  That right there sold me on this skill challenge mechanic.

We did not get to choose to do an easy, medium or hard task.  We described what we wanted to do and the DM simply assigned a value, that we did not know, to the task.  We also did not know how many successes we needed.  We just knew that we wanted to have more successes than failures.  In the end we had 10 successes and 4 failures and were able to escape the town.

YMMV


----------



## Shroomy (Mar 6, 2008)

D'karr, that sounds awesome.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 6, 2008)

Shroomy said:
			
		

> D'karr, that sounds awesome.




The best part of that scene was that each player played off the scene using the interaction of the other players.

The DM also explained that this type of challenge can be tailored to accomplish scenes that you don't want to necessarily devolve into combat, though they can.  

For example a country is about to be invaded by a marauding army of goblins and they are unsure of what course of action to take.  You could use diplomacy to attempt to convince the ruling council that allowing the goblins any leeway would be disastrous.  You could use bluff to speak about other incursions the goblins have been in (a lie).  You could use perception to sense which of the councilors will vote against your recommendation.  You could even have an opposing councilor countering your points.  You could then use Heraldry to know that this councilor has a long history of allying with the goblinoids for profit.  Use History to remind the council of what happened to the neighboring country when they allowed the goblins to advance.  This could go on for as long as the DM wants to extend the scene.

In the end you might have convinced the council to follow your lead but made a powerful enemy in the process.

I really liked the framework of this mechanic.  And more importantly I like that it tends to promote involvement by all the players.


----------



## dblade (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm totally sold on this system as described. It will be interesting to see more of the details.


----------



## Colmarr (Mar 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> You could then use *Heraldry * to know that this councilor has a long history of allying with the goblinoids for profit.




Is this a scoop? Is Heraldry confirmed as the 4e Knowledge (nobility)?

But that issue aside, I can understand Derren's position. He is (and correct me if I'm wrong) resistant to treating non-combat encounters with the same level of abstraction as combat encounters. 

I personally don't feel that way. The 4e skill challenge system seems to be an abstraction. PCs say "I want to climb a wall", not I want to climb that wall". They say "I want to find a secret passage", not "I want to find a secret passage in Via Santorini". If the skill check is a success, then the PC gets a little closer to overall success. In the Escape from Sembia scenario, an explanation might be that each success allows the PCs to get slightly further ahead of the guards, that each success prolongs the chase and the guards begin to tire or that the guards begin to realise that maybe it's not in their best interest to catch this experienced adventurer after all...

I can handle that level of abstraction and assuming some level of fiat remains with the DM to determine what is and isn't an appropriate check for a given encounter (ie. no Bluff checks to assist with disarming a mechanical scythe trap), I heartily look forward to using this system.

Incidentally, and in case any is interested, I do expect that there will be a hard-wired element of fiat in skill challenges. The DMG will presumably not dictate that any skill can affect any challenge. In that regard, I think WotC were quite cunning in choosing a chase scene for their sample skill challenge, because it is one of the few challenges that any skill could viably assist.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Mar 6, 2008)

The reason I think this will work for 4E and not 3E, is because it looks like WotC took pains in making sure your skills rise at an even keel.  In other words, you can't min/max or inflate a skill too high, like you can in 3E.  You can make a 2nd level character in 3E with a 30+ diplomacy check, which I suspect you can't in 4E.  That kind of character would un rampant using this system.

Just some observations...

I like how you can influence the world as a player.  There might not be a wall curtain drawn on the battle map, but using description along with a skill roll, you can assume there was one there all along and use it to climb out of danger.

I like the idea of describing what you want to have happen, the DM setting a secret difficulty number too it, then rolling for the outcome.  I have to admit, it will take some getting used to for me, it is a different way to do things as we are used to with D&D.


----------



## Stalker0 (Mar 6, 2008)

The thing I love the most about this encounter idea is that it is so easily for the dm to create.

All I have to do is give the failure to success ratio, and then determine the DCs for easy, medium, and hard. I then leave it up to my players to come up with all the crazy ways the will try to succeed, and I simply arbitrate whether I allow them to make the skill check they want.

That's a lot cleaner than trying to figure out how hard a person can jump, how hard it is to climb wall X vs wall Y, etc.


My biggest worry with this is it creates a system where each player never has to roll one of his bad skills. The wizard is always getting knowledge rolls while the fighter makes athletics.

But overall, I like what I've heard so far.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 6, 2008)

I suspect DMs will vary quite a bit in how much they let players "alter reality" with their skill attempts. For me personally if a player attempts to use perception during a chase scene to search for a secret door, and I don't think there is a really good reason why one might be there....then there will not be and the action will fail. Other Dms will create a door for him to find.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 6, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> You can make a 2nd level character in 3E with a 30+ diplomacy check, which I suspect you can't in 4E.  That kind of character would un rampant using this system.



2nd level 4e PC: 20 Cha (+5), trained in diplomacy (+5), 2nd level (+1): +11 skill bonus, hits 30+ on a check on a roll of 19.   It won't scale as fast as in 3e, but it's still very possible.  I didn't even include Skill Focus (which is another +3 to +5) or racial bonuses (half-elves provide +1 to Diplomacy within 25').



			
				RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> The reason I think this will work for 4E and not 3E...



4e and 3e have the same basic skill system.  What's been presented here is a particular way to design non-combat encounters; it has very little to do with the actual underlying skill rules.  Which is to say, like 4e's trap design philosophy, it works fine in 3e, and will probably be stolen by enterprising 3e DMs.   Or IOW, this isn't a 4e vs 3e thing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> 2nd level 4e PC: 20 Cha (+5), trained in diplomacy (+5), 2nd level (+1): +11 skill bonus, hits 30+ on a check on a roll of 19.   It won't scale as fast as in 3e, but it's still very possible.  I didn't even include Skill Focus (which is another +3 to +5) or racial bonuses (half-elves provide +1 to Diplomacy within 25').



Hmm, he wrote "check", but I think he wanted to say modifier. Which is probably a bit too high, but I think a total modifier of +20 is doable at 3rd level. (I think it's something like 6 ranks, +4 charisma, +4 synergy, +3 circlet of persuasion. That brings you to +17. Include a level of Warlock for Beguiling Influence, and you get +23. Roll 7 or less for a check result of 30, or take 10 for 33. I think there was even more cheese possible in 3rd edition, but I am a bit "out of the loop" here. I know that my Warlocks Diplomacy modifier kicks ass and I wasn't even able to max it.  )


----------



## vagabundo (Mar 6, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> My biggest worry with this is it creates a system where each player never has to roll one of his bad skills. The wizard is always getting knowledge rolls while the fighter makes athletics.




I think your could go a little more detailed and force some pre-planned mini encounters in the system that may need some skills that the PCs are not great at.

But if you are character trying to escape a city you are probably going to play to your strenghts, whatever they are.


----------



## Derren (Mar 6, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I think your could go a little more detailed and force some pre-planned mini encounters in the system that may need some skills that the PCs are not great at.
> 
> But if you are character trying to escape a city you are probably going to play to your strenghts, whatever they are.




In a fixed reality its not always possible to always use your strength and you might have to improvise. But in a fluid one, like the one 4E apparantly proposes, you can always use your best skills (not that there would be much difference in skills with everyone being good in all things automatically) because the realities is determined by what skills you use.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> In a fixed reality its not always possible to always use your strength and you might have to improvise. But in a fluid one, like the one 4E apparantly proposes, you can always use your best skills (not that there would be much difference in skills with everyone being good in all things automatically) because the realities is determined by what skills you use.



 Reality is fixed. It just happens to be fixed by many people, not just one.


----------



## D'karr (Mar 6, 2008)

Colmarr said:
			
		

> Is this a scoop? Is Heraldry confirmed as the 4e Knowledge (nobility)?




No, this is not a scoop.  The DM just used it as a generalized example to showcase the way a skill challenge might be used.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> My biggest worry with this is it creates a system where each player never has to roll one of his bad skills. The wizard is always getting knowledge rolls while the fighter makes athletics.




I asked that question and our DM explained that it was entirely up to the DM to determine whether a specific skill use was applicable to ADVANCING the goal.

So in the example of the war council somebody that is really good at Athletics could have used that to impress the council with his strength but that would not advance the goal.  That was another reason not to tell us how many successes are needed.  It is harder to metagame the situation if all you know is that you need more successes than failures, but not an exact number.

And looking like fools with the council could also penalize you and make your successes harder to come by (circumstance penalty).


----------



## Acid_crash (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And you are mistaken that you have to change reality for the PCs to affect the story or the setting. You can do that equally fine when there no alleys appearing out of nowhere just because the PCs made a knowledge check.
> In 3E the PCs have to work with the in game situation to solve the adventure/scene. In 4E the in game situation changes according to what the PCs do and imo this is simply cheap and "unrealistic".




From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem.

4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them.  

4e is also much more realistic than the open and shut case of 3e... 3e, as designed, is a single die roll system.  The core rules of the phb don't include rules for complex skill checks, and even if there are guidelines in the DMG, they are fuzzy at best and don't give much for xp rewards.  4e does.  

4e system, as I've seen so far, for the way the complex skills work, makes the following situation  more plausible --

We've all been in the situation where the group had to negotiate with somebody for some thing.  In the 3e way, we have one person make a Diplomacy roll, the other make a Diplomacy or Bluff roll, and its done.  Whoever rolls higher wins.  But, in a long term negotiation, this kind of skill roll is highly unrealistic and unplausible.  The rest of the group twiddles their thumbs while the speaker speaks and makes his one roll.

Now, with 4e, those other characters can do something.  One can Intimidate, and if successful can add to the success count towards the group.  Another can Bluff with someone else (let's pretend there are multiple people on both sides) not at the table, but if the bluff is successful it could cause a distraction with the negotiators, another point to the players side.  You have the speaker himself talking, and let's say he fails a easy check.  That negates the help the rest of the party has done for him.  

This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like.

Either that, or you simply hate the idea of 4e so much that you will say anything to twist whatever else people are saying just to be a 4e hater... which is it?


----------



## D'karr (Mar 6, 2008)

I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.   Can all these things be done in 3e?  Absolutely.  You could easily pick this mechanic up and insert it into 3e without any tweaking or very minor tweaking.

The advantage of 4e in this case is that this mechanic is completely explained in the CORE rules.  With 3e, some of this came out as part of several books or modules like Red Hand of Doom, PHB2 and DMG2 and it is more difficult for a "new" DM to figure out.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.



I think it's even game system neutral. 
I could use the same system in Shadowrun, Warhammer, DSA or CoC. The only requirement is some kind of skill system. (From a game system perspective). Some games have more specific implementations, though (Torg uses a resolution system with cards, IIRC).

And you're absolutely right - the advantage of 4E over 3E (and many other games end editions) here is that it explains this system in the core rulebook. You don't have to come up with it on your own...


----------



## Derren (Mar 6, 2008)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> From the sounds of it, Derren, sorry to say this but it really seems that you don't like anything that will allow players to add to the game beyond the limits in which you will set as their DM... from the way all your posts seem.




Yes I do. The players should not add to the game *world*. That is the DMs job. What the players should do is to influence and act inside the game world but not change the game world in a metagame way. (Changing teh game world by in game action is fine, placing a princess into a certain place because the player rolled a skill check is not)







> 4e will empower players in some situations to allow them to modify and tell the story based on the skills they use, how they use them, and why they use them.




All this can also be done in 3E and it isn't necessary to change the game world for this. Are you unable to understand this or do you have to resort to attacking my argument with "You don't want to let the players tell a story" accusations and now have to twist my words so that this attack fits?

When I play a thief I can too tell a story about him fleeing from guards without constantly changing the game world by making alleys and princesses appear everywhere where formally where non by a skill role and instead work with the city how it exists by definition of the DM.







> This 4e way of doing it, it is more dynamic, more cinematic, and more player empowering, which is what I think that you don't like.




No, the proposed way in 4E is different than in 3E but as above posers said nothing prevents you from using this skill setup in 3E too. Except that in 3E the players have to think more about what they do as they are not automatically good at everything which means each has his strengths and weaknesses, and because the game world is not constantly changing to suit the PCs needs. Instead the PCs have to be more attentive in order to work with the game world, not constantly rewriting it.

The idea to use the skills this way is very good, but the execution is bad. It would have been good as a guideline, not as a rule.


You seem to want to imply that my way is a iron fisted railroading one, but that can't be more wrong. My idea of a skill encounter is a lot more freeform than this 4E system (except for the rewriting reality part) because the PCs have total freedom of what they want to do and are not constrained by having to succeed in X skill checks. When they find a way to get out of the city with no skill checks at all, fine. When they make a huge detour which takes a whole gaming session its also fine. In 4E this escape the city part is always limited by the amount of skills you have to roll before you fail or succeed.
This is a good system for people who only want a limited amount of interaction with the game world before going back to the dungeon or other adventure part or for people who don't want to think too much about what they actually do and instead only want to pull of some cool looking stunts but I am not one of those persons.


----------



## hong (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes I do. The players should not add to the game *world*. That is the DMs job.




Ooh, Derren lays down the law. Respect his authoritay!


----------



## 1of3 (Mar 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I think that the best thing about this mechanic is that it is edition neutral.




Hardly so. 4E characters' skills can differ by modifier and training, that's about nine points. In 3E you can easily have a difference of 30+.


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 6, 2008)

I love the _idea_ of this system.  Application of it will take some rethinking on my part, which will be the hard part.  Giving up authorial control to the players will be hard for a lot of DMs.

But in the end, I think it will make for a much more satisfying game...for the GM and the players.


----------



## Nymrohd (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren you really need to understand that not all of us play in your game (and I think some of us are glad) and that people can play the game in vastly differing styles. It is cool that you don't like the way the system works but you really need to stop phrasing your opinion in such a dogmatic manner.


----------



## glass (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes I do. The players should not add to the game *world*. That is the DMs job. What the players should do is to influence and act inside the game world but not change the game world in a metagame way.



So, do you know the exact location and details of every NPC, wall, secret door, sewer entrance in the entirety of you game world at all times?

Assuming you don't, you need some way of determining the answer when the PC asks 'is there a wall I can climb' or 'OK, I climbed over that wall, is there anyone on the other side worth talking to'. The rules apparently suggest the result of a skill check as one way of answering those questions. You seem to prefer other ways, but that is fine because those other ways will not have disappeared.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> The idea to use the skills this way is very good, but the execution is bad. It would have been good as a guideline, not as a rule.



If you have seen these rules, why aren't you under an NDA? Since noone from WotC has turned up and asked you to stop, I'm assuming you have not in fact seen the new DMG.



			
				1of3 said:
			
		

> D'karr said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is quite true, but since it does not in any way rebut what D'karr said, where does 'hardly so' come in? 



			
				Nymrohd said:
			
		

> Derren you really need to understand that not all of us play in your game (and I think some of us are glad) and that people can play the game in vastly differing styles. It is cool that you don't like the way the system works but you really need to stop phrasing your opinion in such a dogmatic manner.



It's not cool, because Derren doesn't _know_ how the system works.


glass.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 6, 2008)

Kestrel said:
			
		

> I love the _idea_ of this system.  Application of it will take some rethinking on my part, which will be the hard part.  Giving up authorial control to the players will be hard for a lot of DMs.
> 
> But in the end, I think it will make for a much more satisfying game...for the GM and the players.



Correct on all points.

Adapting to this kind of play was a challenge to my group and myself. That said, I've been playing that way for a couple of years now, and I don't ever want to go back.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 6, 2008)

After thinking about it for a good long time, I'm going to give this system a reluctant thumbs up. Reluctant because I've always worked with the model of the PCs as actors in a world previously detailed by the DM, and it's hard to give up a mindset and habits that are nearly twenty-five years old (yes, I've been gaming _that_ long ). 

However, I'm giving it the thumbs up for one specific reason. This interactivity - the ability of the PCs to find creative solutions to problems which may not have occured to the DM, and the ability of the DM to make changes to the game world on the fly in response to what the PCs do, or even depending on whether the PCs succeed or fail - is one thing that computers are not yet able to do, and it is thus going to be one critical factor in distinguishing a role-playing game with a human DM from one run by a computer.

As a DM, I could have always decided beforehand which specific skills would enable a PC to overcome a challenge if he successfully made a skill check (at DCs which could vary depending on the skill), or that if he managed to climb into a specific tower, he will encounter an NPC who will be able to help him. All the above system does is to encourage a shift in the time of making these decisions from _before_ the game to _during_ the game. It is a more freeform and interactive system, and in some ways, it may even be a better one.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Mar 6, 2008)

I like the system (as we understand it so far).  One of my great revelations as a GM came from a system called Theatrics which was the first time I had seen this shared authorial power.  It basically said that if the payers introduce something to the scene that was reasonable and appropriate, so be it:  

If the fight was taking place in a stables and the fighter says "I grab the pitchfork that was stuck in the pile of hay" that was allowed, even if the GM hadn't 'put' a pitchfork there.  If the Rogue says "I hide behind the feed barrel" so be it, even if the GM had not mentioned a feed barrel. . .

If the suggested action was scene-changing, the GM  could require that the player spend a "plot-point" (a finite resource in the game) to enable the action.

Basically, the rule was intended to eliminate the need for the players to interupt the game-play with situational questions.  Actually, the rule stated that if the player asked, the answer was automatically "No."  It encouraged me to say "yes" to the players when I was running other systems, because I realized that there is rarely a reason to say no.

This system seems to do the same thing, with skill checks answering the question for you.  The DM can always say no (see the Athletics check to convince the Council), or rule that it is unlikely ("you want to find a secret door in an alley?  that will be a hard challenge - it is not impossible, but it would be unusual. . .").  Maybe they could spend an Action Point to  . . .


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> So, do you know the exact location and details of every NPC, wall, secret door, sewer entrance in the entirety of you game world at all times?




Here is one place I agree with Derren.  I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time.  I do need to think on my feet.  If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits.  I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.

No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear.  No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go.  The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.

The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit.  No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.

That's how I DM.  I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds.  My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.



> Assuming you don't, you need some way of determining the answer when the PC asks 'is there a wall I can climb' or 'OK, I climbed over that wall, is there anyone on the other side worth talking to'. The rules apparently suggest the result of a skill check as one way of answering those questions. You seem to prefer other ways, but that is fine because those other ways will not have disappeared.




I totally agree.  There is nothing in 4e that prevents me from deciding for myself what it there; and no rule in the PHB is going to determine that.  If the players do the unexpected (and they always manage to at some point), I would use this to help guide the sudden, unplanned encounter.  It's a decent guideline.

Under the goblin invasion social encounter, I would have the council minorly mapped out (who could be allies and who could be enemies) and I would have the major proponent of the goblin advancement's background set.  Whether he had profitted from goblin invasions before would be known to me before hand...no Heraldry check can turn up information that I don't know.  They can make the check...failure means they don't know, success means they do know.  Failure does not mean he didn't and success does not mean he did (again, it sounds like 4e's skills are designed to go by this distinction, and is another point Derren disagrees with).

However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks.  If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy.  It all came down to the one roll, however.

Seeing the skills in 4e, I would probably change this approach to the following. The characters would be given time to make their case (X rounds).  There would be certain skills they could use to to do so.  Every failure would be a -1, every success a +1.  If they every get to 5 or -5, argument is over, having made their point as best they could, or completely flubbed it.  At this point, words will do nothing more.  At the end of X rounds, how they effected the council will be determined by their score.

Depending on the situation, the other lord might then need to make his own case (using his own skills) in an attempt to beat the player's score to determine who won the arguement and swayed the council more.

So even though my I use the "Players play in the world that I created" DM philosophy much like Derren does, it seems, I don't see that 4e prevents me from playing that way at all, and it inspires new ways of thinking and achieving that environment in order to keep all players involved.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> That's how I DM.  I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds.  My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.



Don't think of it as the players creating the setting.  Think of it as you ad libbing a detail you previously did not think up, with heavy deference to whether the player rolled well.

If I, as a DM, don't know whether there's a whoozit nearby because I hadn't detailed that information in advance, and my player has a whoozit detecting skill, I'm more likely to say "yeah, there's a whoozit" if he rolls very high on his whoozit detection check.  If he rolls low, I say "no, there's no whoozit."  That could mean that there was a whoozit and he didn't find it, but since I don't know whether there's a whoozit or not since I didn't decide yet, it remains a Schroedinger's Whoozit for the time being.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The players should not add to the game *world*. That is the DMs job.



A lot of people consider this negotiable. Personally, I've had tremendous success giving more narrative authority to my players --and yes, I run D&D, not some new-fangled indie RPG.


----------



## Archmage (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Here is one place I agree with Derren.  I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time.  I do need to think on my feet.  If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits.  I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.
> 
> No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear.



People are hanging on this one thing like this is what has to happen. Any changes made to the environment are still the DM's decision. Sure, you didn't originally map an alley there, but maybe there is one? Or a crack in a wall the PC can duck into. Or they spot something they can use to climb up to a 2nd floor window. Or whatever makes sense in the context of the encounter. People are clinging to this "PC creates a secret door argument" far too tightly - that's just a decision one DM made in one specific scenario.



> No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an



You design where each apple cart in your towns is? Really? The apple cart example seems like a perfect usage for this system, because it's a random element that's easily added.



> honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go.  The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.



But it's OK if the DM rolls a die to make him corrupt? That makes absolutely no sense. If you're allowing a random chance for random guard #347 to be corrupt, why does it make a difference if the die roll is the DM assigning an arbitrary percentage or a PC making a skill check against a DC set by the DM? Again, this seems like a great usage of the system. 



> The Escape Scene ends when the PCs get out of the city or too a safe house or manage to totally ditch any pursuit.  No number of successful rolls will end the scene if the PCs never make it out of the town square.



And if they stand around in the town square they get caught. Obviously they have to be actively trying to get away - this skill system is just a way to help adjudicate if they succeed or not. I am currently running a Ptolus campaign - there is no way I could reasonably expect the player of the rogue to know the streets a fraction as well as her character would. In a chase with guards then, why would it be fair to ask her to choose which way her character runs? If she succeeds on checks, she eventually winds up near a handy sewer grate or even escapes cleanly. If she fails, the guards are on her heels and possibly catch her. 



> That's how I DM.  I spend a lot of time setting up scenes, dungeons, cities, and worlds.  My players can affect them, but they cannot create them.



And your players can't be reasonably expected to know your world as well as you do, regardless if their character would or not. We are not discussing a skill called "create secret door" here. The DM decides what skill the character is checking against, and the DM decides what the result of the check means. I don't see players creating anything.




> I totally agree.  There is nothing in 4e that prevents me from deciding for myself what it there; and no rule in the PHB is going to determine that.  If the players do the unexpected (and they always manage to at some point), I would use this to help guide the sudden, unplanned encounter.  It's a decent guideline.



That's exactly the point.



> Under the goblin invasion social encounter, I would have the council minorly mapped out (who could be allies and who could be enemies) and I would have the major proponent of the goblin advancement's background set.  Whether he had profitted from goblin invasions before would be known to me before hand...no Heraldry check can turn up information that I don't know.



So it turns up something else. Again, what the check means is the *DM's decision*.



> They can make the check...failure means they don't know, success means they do know.  Failure does not mean he didn't and success does not mean he did (again, it sounds like 4e's skills are designed to go by this distinction, and is another point Derren disagrees with).



That's what the DM decided in that particular instance - you would have likely decided something different. 

However, in 3e, I would have settled this with a single Diplomacy check, potentially given +s or -s depending on other checks.  If the other lord was corrupt, then a successful knowledge, nobility check on this info would give a +2 on the Diplomacy.  It all came down to the one roll, however.[/quote]
I think breaking it down into multiple rolls encourages more roleplaying of the encounter. They get the negotiations to a certain point and make a check, which if they succeed at guides the tone of the next set of negotiations, etc. "The councilman seems to be considering your points with a newfound respect" or "As you speak the disdain is clear on the councilman's face." 



> Seeing the skills in 4e, I would probably change this approach to the following. The characters would be given time to make their case (X rounds).  There would be certain skills they could use to to do so.  Every failure would be a -1, every success a +1.  If they every get to 5 or -5, argument is over, having made their point as best they could, or completely flubbed it.  At this point, words will do nothing more.  At the end of X rounds, how they effected the council will be determined by their score.



Any particular reason to boil it down to one check? There are some goals that it makes sense for, but it seems to me something like a negotiation lends itself to "X successes before Y failures" multiple check solution. 



> Depending on the situation, the other lord might then need to make his own case (using his own skills) in an attempt to beat the player's score to determine who won the arguement and swayed the council more.



I can definitely see opposed checks as part of the sequence that the PCs have to succeed at.



> So even though my I use the "Players play in the world that I created" DM philosophy much like Derren does, it seems, I don't see that 4e prevents me from playing that way at all, and it inspires new ways of thinking and achieving that environment in order to keep all players involved.



While I still fail to see where these rules oppose said philosophy, I agree with your conclusion here.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Don't think of it as the players creating the setting.  Think of it as you ad libbing a detail you previously did not think up, with heavy deference to whether the player rolled well.
> 
> If I, as a DM, don't know whether there's a whoozit nearby because I hadn't detailed that information in advance, and my player has a whoozit detecting skill, I'm more likely to say "yeah, there's a whoozit" if he rolls very high on his whoozit detection check.  If he rolls low, I say "no, there's no whoozit."  That could mean that there was a whoozit and he didn't find it, but since I don't know whether there's a whoozit or not since I didn't decide yet, it remains a Schroedinger's Whoozit for the time being.




If something comes up that I had not thought of, I do ad lib it.  The thing is, more than likely, I know if there is a whoozit nearby or not before hand.

Every dungeon and area I create has an ecology.  If there is a carrion crawler, I know what it is eating and how it get's it's food.  If there is an elemental or golem, I know why it is there even if it doesn't make sense for it to be there.

When my players find something out of the ordinary and their immediate thought is "Why is THAT there?" they can try to rationalize out why something is there because there is a reason.

So if I think my players are going to be fighting in a stable, I know where the buckets, hay, pitchforks, shovels, wheel-barrows, and horses are.  If I don't expect them to be there and they manage to get into a fight in the stables anyway, I ad lib it.

But a disarmed fighter in my group doesn't say "I pick up the pitch fork and use it."  He askes me if there is a pitchfork, I tell him to make a spot roll, and I roll randomly on what I think the chances are of the pitchfork being left stuck in the hay next to the fighter or on the wall ten feet behind him, and that roll is influenced by whether the owner of the stable is chaotic (like to leave stuff around and not likely to discipline stablehands who do the same) or lawful (anal about placement of tools).  If he succeeds the spot check, I reveal to him where the pitchfork is based on the random roll.

Nothing that fighter can do, other than pick up the and move the pitchfork himself, changes where the pitchfork is after it has been determined either by me before the game or by random roll during the game.

Once I read the guidelines in the 4e book, maybe I'll try it another way and see how that goes...


----------



## Andur (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer, I think you are accomplishing the same thing as archmage, just in a more calculated matter.

For example, in the famer's stable, I don't care how high or how many successed are rolled, a +5 Holy Avenger is not going to "appear" in the haystack.  Looking for a pitchfork or shovel on the otherhand would result in, high chance there would be one (in my mind 100%) and then just a matter of finding it.

The world is not the game, the people playing are the game.  That's the way I approach it.  And the story is never more important than the characters...


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Here is one place I agree with Derren.  I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time.  I do need to think on my feet.  If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits.  I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.
> 
> No Streetwise or Perception check will cause a secret door to magically appear.  No climb check or diplomacy check would cause a princess to appear, a strength check does not turn over a cart if there is no cart to turn over and if the captain of the guard is an honest, loyal man, he will not let the PCs go.  The guard that catches up to the PCs may be corrupt (rolled randomly, maybe a 20% chance of it happening) and no decision or roll on the PCs part makes him corrupt.
> 
> ...




I don't think the system will allow players to create setting details on successful checks unless the DM allows it.

I do think a number of successful rolls will mean the PCs get their goal, no matter what.  If you're still in the town square and you've made all your rolls, you've succeeded and you get out of town.

You don't have to do that, of couse; but then the system isn't "roll x successes before y failures to achieve your goal."  It is "roll some dice for show, and have your PCs do what the DM thinks is the correct solution."  That's fine, if you like it, but a totally different system.


----------



## Derren (Mar 6, 2008)

Andur said:
			
		

> For example, in the famer's stable, I don't care how high or how many successed are rolled, a +5 Holy Avenger is not going to "appear" in the haystack.




Except that with 4E you will now have a clue where you would find a +5 Holy Avenger.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2008)

I'm a fan.

I was a fan when I saw the idea seed in Unearthed Arcana, but I'm a fan. It's a really nice complex skill resolution mechanic.

I like the fact that the DM is empowered to say "Yes." How the DM can set up the skills that should be used, and that a player can use other skills if the idea is clever, but perhaps at a penalty (the cleric using Religion instead of Diplomacy is nice). Presumably, there'd be some skills that wouldn't necessarily work, but I like it when the game system let sme say "Yes!" as often as possible.

In fact, that's my main problem with 4e's monster rules....but that's several other threads.   



> In a fixed reality its not always possible to always use your strength and you might have to improvise. But in a fluid one, like the one 4E apparantly proposes, you can always use your best skills (not that there would be much difference in skills with everyone being good in all things automatically) because the realities is determined by what skills you use.




I don't see how this system *isn't* improvisation. The in-game example of the cleric using Religion is a case of imporovisation on the part of the cleric, and the DM let it work (it was a believable tactic), but at a penalty. I like how it's basically "If you can give me a good reason for why your skill should work, I will let it happen, and if it's only a marginally good reason, I'll give you a penalty, but still let you try. And you could always try the skills that were MEANT to work, because you shouldn't be too shabby at them, either!"

I fully embrace a philosophy that allows the DM to permit madcap schemes to work if the player rolls high enough. It encourages player creativity. And if they fail, it encourages DM creativity in menacing them. 

This makes me optimistic.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Keep in mind that it's not neccessarily the dice roll result of the PC that determines whether something is "true" in the world that was undecided before. It can also be the skill selection made by the player. Or the description of the scene he wants to attempt. Or the DC he sets. Or all three. Sometimes the DM decides it.

You can even use this system in a very structured manner, the DM deciding the possible sequences for the use, possibly setting the DCs and the out-come. 
A very short example: "To convince the king to lend the Elven Settlement a platoon of his soldiers, the players need to convince someone (options: Princess, Guard Captain, "Abusing" an ancient tradition/law/event) to help them get an audience. They must then explain the situation (Diplomacy?) to him. The Prince will oppose since he is secretly working with the harrassers of the Elves (Insight). The Court Mage dislikes the idea of wasting troops and points out an historical example where this lead to harm for the kingdom (History). The King fears that the cost of the expedition would be too high (Bluff, Diplomacy).

Or you can do it more free-form and let the players make things up on the spot, and just go with it. 

I think outside of a social encounter, a very free-form approach might get better role-playing results, since few people would just say "I roll Athletics, then Stealth, then Bluff. 3 Successes. Encounter finished." but would try to describe what they're trying to do.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Archmage said:
			
		

> People are hanging on this one thing like this is what has to happen. Any changes made to the environment are still the DM's decision. Sure, you didn't originally map an alley there, but maybe there is one? Or a crack in a wall the PC can duck into. Or they spot something they can use to climb up to a 2nd floor window. Or whatever makes sense in the context of the encounter. People are clinging to this "PC creates a secret door argument" far too tightly - that's just a decision one DM made in one specific scenario.




Our biggest disagreement is simply DMing style (which is nothing to argue over, so please don't think I am starting an arguement over it!).  The point of my post was that, while Derren and I seem to have similar DMing styles, I very much disagree with him that 4e deters from that style.

This particular arguement (the secret door) is not one that I think even happened in the Sembia scene...it is just one that has been quoted a few times as an example.  My point was simply this: if the alley way a character ducks into is a dead end, then that is what it is.  They might be able to climb out, but unless I have it noted that there is a crack, a small passage, or a sewer drain there, then the alley is a dead end with no means of escape.  I know before the adventure starts if a streetwise or spot check finds some way out of the area.

If this is one of the ways in which 4e is supposedly making the DM's job easier, it might not be working that way for me (but there is so much I like about 4e, that alone wouldn't stop me from trying it).



> You design where each apple cart in your towns is? Really? The apple cart example seems like a perfect usage for this system, because it's a random element that's easily added.




Generally, no.

If I know I am planning an Escape from Sembia scene, then yes, yes I do.  Infact, I know every stopped apple cart and every horse-pulled apple cart, the route it is taking, and how fast it is moving so I know where it is every round.

I would even have a good idea of which merchants in the market square were selling what type of things, so that if the fighter knocked over the third stall on the left, I know if it is jewelery spewed all over the ground acting as caltrops or cooked meat all over the place, possibly enticing some of the 1d6+1 stray dogs in the area to come over and eat in 1d4 rounds.



> But it's OK if the DM rolls a die to make him corrupt? That makes absolutely no sense. If you're allowing a random chance for random guard #347 to be corrupt, why does it make a difference if the die roll is the DM assigning an arbitrary percentage or a PC making a skill check against a DC set by the DM? Again, this seems like a great usage of the system.




I know if the captain of the guards is loyal and honest.

Depending on the situation, I either have each guard made up and know which is which and what they are doing and their motives (that is unlikely).  Or I have general knowledge of the make-up of the policing force (20% corrupt, most wear scale armor and use maces).

Agreed that this might be one place in which this system might work out over my own style.  However, something just feels wrong about a successful Diplomicy check determining if the guard is corrupt over a random check to determine if it was one of the corrupt guards that got to the PCs (and thus lowering the DC of the diplomacy check because of it).



> And if they stand around in the town square they get caught.




One review of the scene I read showed the characters doing acrobatics and performances to gather the crowd and the cleric giving a sermon about their god on the street and the like.  While gathering a crowd and over-turning carts can slow down the guards, neither actually move someone out of the city.  Players can wrack up a load of successes which can all prevent them from being caught without even trying to get away.  This is why I say X successed does not get you out; only getting out gets you out.  Successful skill checks just give you information or show that you completed an action that helps prevent your capture.



> Obviously they have to be actively trying to get away - this skill system is just a way to help adjudicate if they succeed or not. I am currently running a Ptolus campaign - there is no way I could reasonably expect the player of the rogue to know the streets a fraction as well as her character would. In a chase with guards then, why would it be fair to ask her to choose which way her character runs? If she succeeds on checks, she eventually winds up near a handy sewer grate or even escapes cleanly. If she fails, the guards are on her heels and possibly catch her.




Were the escape in a city the PCs had only just arrived in, I would present them with a mostly covered map, detailing the area they are in and slowly revealing it as they went to new places.

In a city the PCs know well, they would get a map showing everything they know about the city off the top of their heads.  They could ask questions about the map (might prompt skill checks to see if they know the answers), but the map would be the defined bounds of the encounter.



> And your players can't be reasonably expected to know your world as well as you do, regardless if their character would or not. We are not discussing a skill called "create secret door" here. The DM decides what skill the character is checking against, and the DM decides what the result of the check means. I don't see players creating anything.




True, they don't know the world like I do.  The point is, when the encounter starts, 95% of the world is already created for that encounter, with that 5% being the few things I did not think of and need to ad lib, and I am more than happy to do it.



> So it turns up something else. Again, what the check means is the *DM's decision*.




I quite agree with you.  All of this is DM's decision.  The major difference here is, 4e invites the DM to not plan all that a head of time and let the PC's checks determin this during the game.  In 20 years, I have never played so freeform.  I, as you can gather, plan everything out every tactically.



> That's what the DM decided in that particular instance - you would have likely decided something different.




Was more a point of what the 4e guidelines might suggest.  The design philosophy looks like it encourages DMs to think along the lines of success does not mean you were successful in achieving the skill, but that you were successful in getting the outcome you wanted.  The difference here being Heraldry revealing the the player what I the DM pretermined (corruption or no corruption as the case may be) vs. Heraldry revealing to the player what they were hoping to find (corruption).  It isn't always this way, of course, but it is seems like that is, in general, the basic philosophy of the way skills work. 




> I think breaking it down into multiple rolls encourages more roleplaying of the encounter. They get the negotiations to a certain point and make a check, which if they succeed at guides the tone of the next set of negotiations, etc. "The councilman seems to be considering your points with a newfound respect" or "As you speak the disdain is clear on the councilman's face."




Agreed.  This change in thought on how to handle such a situation in 4e is much better, in my mind, than a single modified diplomacy check.



> Any particular reason to boil it down to one check? There are some goals that it makes sense for, but it seems to me something like a negotiation lends itself to "X successes before Y failures" multiple check solution.




I think you mistook.  Players are given time to make their arguement and can make as many checks as they can in that time.  Successes count for them (+1), failures against them (-1).  If they get to five (5 successes in a row, no failures; 6 and 1, whatever), they can't argue anything more favoribly than that, so they made their point and even if they have more time, need not continue.  Conversely, at -5 they will have completely flubbed their point so badly, no matter what they say, the council won't listen.

The antagonist of this scene then gets his chance to argue against the PCs and makes his checks, trying to score higher on the -5 to 5 scale then the PCs in order to win the arguement.

This would be like one party getting a chance to speak and then the second party doing so.

In other situations, I could see the PCs argueing against the antagonist point for counter point, at which time the PCs would make their rolls while the opponent made his, back and forth, trying to swing success in their favor as they went along.  Each has their place.



> I can definitely see opposed checks as part of the sequence that the PCs have to succeed at.




Quite so.



> While I still fail to see where these rules oppose said philosophy, I agree with your conclusion here.




The guildelines of the skills as supposed from what we know seems to encourage a "figure it out while you play: here's how to be spontaneous in your D&D game and cut down on prep time!" way of playing.  It has a sense of "don't worry about that guy's background, let the PC's rolls figure it out for you and play off those."

I don't do that.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2008)

> Or you can do it more free-form and let the players make things up on the spot, and just go with it.




Here's my current approach:

"Okay, so you want to convince the king to send troops to the elves? How do you get an audience with him?"
(they propose ideas)
"Okay, roll an (appropriate skill to the idea) check."
(they do, perhaps they succeed)
"All right, you have an audience with the king. How do you convince him to send troops to help the elves?"
(they propose ideas, perhaps some RP is thrown in)
"Okay, roll an (appropriate skill tot he idea) check."

I don't think 4e will fundamentally change this approach, it'll just add some nuance that 3e was lacking (number of successes, failures adding penalties, making it less 'binary.').


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2008)

I am hoping that it will be possible to run a quick-n-bloody combat with the skill rules.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 6, 2008)

For years now, I've been pushing the book "Truth in Comedy" as one of those books that every DM should read.  I think I've managed to convince maybe one person to read it in that time.  Fans of this system will find a TON of useful ideas in that book.

As for secret doors and princesses, it feels as though those ideas are being singled out because they're at least on that edge of abusive, if not standing firmly on the other side.  If more mundane versions of those escape routes were being suggested and used, I think that it would be less mind jarring for people (aside from Derren).

A streetwise character who knows that there's an easy, oft practiced escape route over the wall at the end of a dead end alley is a much friendlier concept than a player who snaps his fingers and insists that there's a pointless secret door that materializes in the middle of a random city wall.

A player who decides that that they're going to climb a wall, and that the wall they're going to climb leads to the magical land of horny princesses with +5 holy avengers who have a thing for hot Dragonborn women with big boobs is being a jerk.


----------



## kclark (Mar 6, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> The best part of that scene was that each player played off the scene using the interaction of the other players.
> 
> The DM also explained that this type of challenge can be tailored to accomplish scenes that you don't want to necessarily devolve into combat, though they can.
> 
> ...




Yes! The poor thugish fighter character without any of those high faluting skills could go and 'convince' one of the opposing councilors to not to raise his particular objection with an Intimidate roll.  The back streets rogue could quickly disguise himself and vote while the real councilor gets 'accidently' locked in the bathroom.

Awesomeness and so completely wide open, but allows for all sort of great backlash and consequences for the actions that the party members decide to take, while still allowing them to accomplish the goal of convincing the council.


----------



## Seule (Mar 6, 2008)

A successful streetwise check doesn't have to mean you know of a secret door or that the alley suddenly isn't a dead end, it may mean that you didn't actually take that street at all, because you knew better. Or, that you know that area well enough that you can take advantage of a hidden handhold to get a bonus to climb out. On the other hand, it's quite possible that a streetwise check won't help at all, and you need athletics or stealth in this case to get successes. 
The mechanic encourages players to have input into the world, to the extent that the DM lets them. A DM who has already decided the pertinent details won't let players change them.
Finally, I can easily see a situation where you are escaping from guards, and get enough successes to escape before leaving the main square. That just means that you've helped yourselves and hampered the pursuers enough that your escape is a forgone conclusion at that point, even if all you still have to do is run.

  --Penn


----------



## Kestrel (Mar 6, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> the magical land of horny princesses with +5 holy avengers who have a thing for hot Dragonborn women with big boobs is being a jerk.




Where were you when they had the campaign setting search?  Dammit, who needs Eberron when you could have the Magical Land of Horny Princesses with +5 Holy Avengers who have a thing for Dragonborn women with Big Boobs?

Ok...maybe that title is a bit long.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> A streetwise character who knows that there's an easy, oft practiced escape route over the wall at the end of a dead end alley is a much friendlier concept than a player who snaps his fingers and insists that there's a pointless secret door that materializes in the middle of a random city wall.




I agree: a streetwise character who makes a successful check would know that info.  Where my taste and 4e seem to diverge (in spirit!  I'm not saying I can't do this in 4e if I continue to DM via my own style) is with this one point:

- In 4e, it seems as though the guidelines for using skills allow for a player who has run down a dead end alley to use the streetwise skill.  Success means he found a way out; failure means he did not.

- By my style, I know before the character even runs down that alley if there is another way out or not.  A streetwise check would have revealed that info to him had he made the check before he ran down the alley, and it will reveal the same info if he is in the alley.  A failure means he does not know.  A success means he does know if there is or isn't.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> As for secret doors and princesses, it feels as though those ideas are being singled out because they're at least on that edge of abusive, if not standing firmly on the other side.  If more mundane versions of those escape routes were being suggested and used, I think that it would be less mind jarring for people (aside from Derren).




I think that was my example.  It's the sort of thing I would allow if I were the DM in that particular game.

That's important: I'm saying (assuming) that it's the DM who gets to decide these things, and if he doesn't like it, then he can rule "No, that skill doesn't apply."  I imagine each group will work out for themselves how situations like that will shake out.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2008)

> - In 4e, it seems as though the guidelines for using skills allow for a player who has run down a dead end alley to use the streetwise skill. Success means he found a way out; failure means he did not.
> 
> - By my style, I know before the character even runs down that alley if there is another way out or not. A streetwise check would have revealed that info to him had he made the check before he ran down the alley, and it will reveal the same info if he is in the alley. A failure means he does not know. A success means he does know if there is or isn't.




I see!

The thing with 4e skill checks is that it appears to be *directly relevant to the goal*. Someone remembering that the alleyway is a dead-end halfway down the alleyway isn't going to gain anything from that knowledge that helps them escape the city. In 4e it might be more abstract. Presumably, you have secret passages out of the city, and, also presumably, a Streetwise check can allow a character to know about them. So assuming those are true, he can make it out of the city with a Streetwise check. Exactly which alleyway he uses is up to the DM, not up to the player, because the player doesn't actually know (but his character does). He doesn't run down that dead-end corridoor.

How would that differ from the way you do it?


----------



## Andur (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that with 4E you will now have a clue where you would find a +5 Holy Avenger.




Only if the DM is a complete idiot.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> If I know I am planning an Escape from Sembia scene, then yes, yes I do.  Infact, I know every stopped apple cart and every horse-pulled apple cart, the route it is taking, and how fast it is moving so I know where it is every round.
> 
> I would even have a good idea of which merchants in the market square were selling what type of things, so that if the fighter knocked over the third stall on the left, I know if it is jewelery spewed all over the ground acting as caltrops or cooked meat all over the place, possibly enticing some of the 1d6+1 stray dogs in the area to come over and eat in 1d4 rounds.
> 
> ...



I would need to have two things to entertain such a technique for my own games. First, I would need to have a great deal of time to create all the details of something even so straightforward as a chase scene. Second, I would need to have a great deal of faith in my ability to anticipate the likely actions of my players. Personally, I'm a little short on both time and confidence. Techniques like this are exactly why 4e is billing itself as being vastly easier to DM than the painful morass that is 3e DMing.

As a DM, I have a lot of work already. I'm *delighted* at the prospect of offloading as much as possible onto the players, particularly when it's done in such a way that their game satisfaction is likely to be enhanced. Instead of obliging them to feel like they've "solved the puzzle" by picking the correct combination of skills to unravel a situation, they're forced to think about how they can use what they have to make happen what they want to happen. It's true that it implicitly encourages PCs to play to their skill strengths when possible, but it doesn't make it the only sane option- which 3.x does. And more consequentially, I like PCs  being encouraged to play off their shticks. Sneako McNotseen, the Stealthiest Man in Cormyr,  *should* be using stealth to accomplish outre feats, even if doing so is harder than it would be for someone specialized in the more predictable skill for a situation.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I see!
> 
> The thing with 4e skill checks is that it appears to be *directly relevant to the goal*. Someone remembering that the alleyway is a dead-end halfway down the alleyway isn't going to gain anything from that knowledge that helps them escape the city. In 4e it might be more abstract. Presumably, you have secret passages out of the city, and, also presumably, a Streetwise check can allow a character to know about them. So assuming those are true, he can make it out of the city with a Streetwise check. Exactly which alleyway he uses is up to the DM, not up to the player, because the player doesn't actually know (but his character does). He doesn't run down that dead-end corridoor.
> 
> How would that differ from the way you do it?




I, as the DM, decided which alley has the way out, not which one the player runs down.  Even the dice don't determine which alley the player runs down.  Only the player makes that decision.

If the players were in the market place in a game I was running, and they needed to flee from the guards, I would give them a map of that they can see in the marketplace, show them where they are, and then show them where the guards are coming from.

If a player says, "I'm ducking down this alley and hiding," and points to the nearest alley, that is what he does and that is where he goes.  I know there is no way out; I also know the next alley down does have a way out through a sewer grate.

The guards see the character head down that alley, but can't see him when they peer into the allet.  The leaders says "You three stay here and guard this entrance.  He has to be here somewhere, and I don't want him getting out." And goes off with the rest.

The player, still hidden, says, "Crap.  I'm stuck.  Is there anyway out of this alley?"  I make him make a streetwise check and due to the success of it, reveal that, no there is no way out of this alley, but the next one down did have a sewer grate you probably could have squeezed through.

The player (and thus his character) did not think about what he should do before he did it, and headed down a dead end.  When he finally did have a moment's pause to think, he realized his error.  And error he could have prevented with an earlier streetwise check.

He had already ducked down the wrong allet, so saying that a streetwise check allows him to find a sewer grate there to escape through either (a) changes the reality of where the sewer grate is or (b) alters the reality of what the player said he did on his turn.

To me, that is the same as a wizard attacking a fire resistant creature with a fire spell, then making his knowledge check about the resistance, and saying either "you made your skill check so it doesn't have fire resist" (alrtering the reality of the creature) or (b) "oh that skill check means you actually used a cold spell.  Roll damage." (altering the reality of what the player did on their turn).


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2008)

Hey jaer;

Your example sounds just like how I would play it.  I'm not sure how you would resolve one thing, though:



			
				jaer said:
			
		

> The player, still hidden, says, "Crap.  I'm stuck.  Is there anyway out of this alley?"  I make him make a streetwise check and due to the success of it, reveal that, no there is no way out of this alley, but the next one down did have a sewer grate you probably could have squeezed through.




Let's say that we are using the x successes before y failures system.  The other characters have generated 5 out of the 6 successes needed.  This roll is a success, and therefore they've got all the successes that they need.

How would you resolve the encounter?

Personally, I'd say that he slips past the guards in the alley and makes it into the sewer grate.  

edit: I'd give the Streetwise roll a penalty, because he's in a pretty bad situation, and what he wants to accomplish is going to be hard.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> I would need to have two things to entertain such a technique for my own games. First, I would need to have a great deal of time to create all the details of something even so straightforward as a chase scene. Second, I would need to have a great deal of faith in my ability to anticipate the likely actions of my players. Personally, I'm a little short on both time and confidence. Techniques like this are exactly why 4e is billing itself as being vastly easier to DM than the painful morass that is 3e DMing.




It does take a great deal of time for me to create a scene like this.  That is two maps: one for me with everything marked on it in great detail and one for my players which has much less detail and little bits being filled in as they go.

I do, however, know my players very well.  I know what skills they have and which they are likely to use and how.  I can easily compenstate for anything I did not predict.  But that is fairly easy anway, and even if I was with a group I did not know, I would have most of my bases covered and a general idea of how the rest would go.



> As a DM, I have a lot of work already. I'm *delighted* at the prospect of offloading as much as possible onto the players, particularly when it's done in such a way that their game satisfaction is likely to be enhanced. Instead of obliging them to feel like they've "solved the puzzle" by picking the correct combination of skills to unravel a situation, they're forced to think about how they can use what they have to make happen what they want to happen. It's true that it implicitly encourages PCs to play to their skill strengths when possible, but it doesn't make it the only sane option- which 3.x does. And more consequentially, I like PCs  being encouraged to play off their shticks. Sneako McNotseen, the Stealthiest Man in Cormyr,  *should* be using stealth to accomplish outre feats, even if doing so is harder than it would be for someone specialized in the more predictable skill for a situation.




I can see that, if you are comfortable with this sort of free-form, build-as-you-go style, this does give some great guidlines on how to successfully handle that.  I am not someone who feels comfortable going freestyle.  I keep in mind putting in things that play off of a character's shtick, and I definitely do not prevent players from doing whatever they decide to do.

But when it comes to environment, I like having it well-defined.


----------



## Belphanior (Mar 6, 2008)

Man, why do some people think that players are completely re-writing the game world on the fly?

This is not how it works:
Player: "I roll Perception for secret doors. Success! This _must_ mean I found one!"

This is how it actually works:
Player: "I roll Perception for secret doors."
DM: "In the middle of a chase on the high street? Whatever, roll."
Player: "Natural 20!"
DM: "Great. You keenly notice that there aren't any secret doors in the front of people's houses. You do manage to spot this so quickly that you don't waste time doing it and keep on running, so no loss was chalked up to your score."
Player: "But do I get a success now?"
DM: "Not all skill checks aid to achieving your goal. And besides, I'm the one who keeps track of your results in secret. Anyway, the map says the street you're on will reach a crossroads now. There's guards there manning a quickly improvised blockade of carts and barrels. What do you do now?"
Player: "I roll to spot secret doors I mean an ordinary open door so I can run into someone's house and out the back."
DM: "Much better. Roll."

Disclaimer: I haven't seen the system in full yet, all this is based on all verified information available.


----------



## Seule (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I, as the DM, decided which alley has the way out, not which one the player runs down.  Even the dice don't determine which alley the player runs down.  Only the player makes that decision.
> 
> If the players were in the market place in a game I was running, and they needed to flee from the guards, I would give them a map of that they can see in the marketplace, show them where they are, and then show them where the guards are coming from.
> 
> If a player says, "I'm ducking down this alley and hiding," and points to the nearest alley, that is what he does and that is where he goes.  I know there is no way out; I also know the next alley down does have a way out through a sewer grate.




In the situation you describe, the Streetwise check comes before you pick an alley, to decide which one to run down. If you get a success you pick the right one, if you fail you pick a less useful one. If you fail and easy check you pick the deadend, and if you succeed a hard check you pick the right one and know esactly where to run to get the best footing, or something. Once you are in the deadend alley you are already past streetwise checks and into athletics for climbing, or stealth to hide, or the like.

  --Penn


----------



## I'm A Banana (Mar 6, 2008)

I see, I see...



			
				jaer said:
			
		

> The player (and thus his character) did not think about what he should do before he did it, and headed down a dead end. When he finally did have a moment's pause to think, he realized his error. And error he could have prevented with an earlier streetwise check.




See, for me, that doesn't gel with the role I'm playing.

If my character has 20 ranks in Streetwise (or whatever), he's going to know things that I, as a player, do not. He's going to know which alleyways lead out of the city, and if he's jumping down allyways trying to get out of the city, he'll only rarely make a dumb descision like that. I, as a player, might make that descision a lot, so if I make a dumb descision that my character wouldn't make, I'd hope my DM would call it out. 

I think that's more similar to what these 4e skill checks are doing. The player doesn't point to an ally to run down, the player declares "I'm running out of the city!" The DM asks "How?" The player says "I use Streetwise to try to find an alley that leads out of the city." If the check succeeds, he does, if it doesn't, maybe he finds himself down a dead-end. 

Thus, the player doesn't make that descision, the character does. 



> To me, that is the same as a wizard attacking a fire resistant creature with a fire spell, then making his knowledge check about the resistance, and saying either "you made your skill check so it doesn't have fire resist" (alrtering the reality of the creature) or (b) "oh that skill check means you actually used a cold spell. Roll damage." (altering the reality of what the player did on their turn).




Y'know, if the great archmage targeted a fire elemental with a fireball, I, as the DM, would pause the action and say: "Now, as a great archmage, you do know that fire isn't the most effective against a fire creature. Do you still want to do this?"

Maybe I'm too forgiving of a DM, I generally advise players if they're behaving out of character, which includes making dumb choices their characters probably wouldn't make. I'm a fan of the skill system because it makes it easier for players to stay in-character, announcing their goals and how their character gets there without having to nominate specific courses of action that their characters may know would be dumb.

I can see how it wouldn't gel with the way you do skills, though.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I agree: a streetwise character who makes a successful check would know that info.  Where my taste and 4e seem to diverge (in spirit!  I'm not saying I can't do this in 4e if I continue to DM via my own style) is with this one point:
> 
> - In 4e, it seems as though the guidelines for using skills allow for a player who has run down a dead end alley to use the streetwise skill.  Success means he found a way out; failure means he did not.
> 
> - By my style, I know before the character even runs down that alley if there is another way out or not.  A streetwise check would have revealed that info to him had he made the check before he ran down the alley, and it will reveal the same info if he is in the alley.  A failure means he does not know.  A success means he does know if there is or isn't.




I think you're overlooking a level of abstraction here. The player doesn't say "I run down Murderer's Alley to elude the guards! I roll a Streetwise check to find a way out!" to which the DM responds based on either of your posited models.

Instead, the player says "I want to try ducking down an alley and losing the guards, maybe by squeezing through a gap in a fence or diving down a sewer. My Streetwise result is 24." 

To which the DM responds "Well, there's no such escape route down Murderer's Alley, so you don't want to go down there--but there _is_ a sewer grate in the alley between the tinker's shop and the tailor's. You dash into the alley, wrench the grate free, and drop into the tunnel seconds before the guards catch up."


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> Hey jaer;
> 
> Your example sounds just like how I would play it.  I'm not sure how you would resolve one thing, though:
> 
> ...




And this is where I don't like the 6 success FTW idea in this sort of situation.  As I said before, I would run it so that the only way a player gets out of the city is if they get out of the city.  I agree that there are ways that the party could get 6 successes in Town Square and make it impossible for the guards to be able to stop them from leaving (starting a riot that has the townfolk attacking the guards, for instance), but even if it is a stroll out of the city gates, they aren't out until they have physically left the city.

The rest of the party might have stayed together and gotten out at this point (they got to the gates with the 6 successes) but one of them got left behind (but his hiding success helped them because it drew off three guards to block the alley).

I would not simply say: "ah, the group got six successes - you managed to get out somehow."  I would rule that that player still needed to show me that he can get out.

He could sneak past the gaurds that are watching for him (difficult DC on that!) but he would pretty much be home free if he manages because the rest of the guards saw the party flee.  They have no way of knowing this random person was with the rest of the group at that point.

He could try to climb out of the alley (probably a difficult DC).  The guards would probably see him, but those three might not be able to climb after him, and as I said, most of the rest of the guards were busy persuing the rest of the party...they aren't looking for this one.

He could even wait it out and do another hide check (harder) for when the leader comes back after the rest have escape, confirms that guards have seen nothing, and thenchecks the alley.  If he doesn't find the PC, he'll assume the PC managed to escape somehow as well (eladrin fey step perhaps or something similar).

But no matter what, I would not let this one player who was, by the story, boxed into an alley get away just because everyone else was successful.  I guess you could say that his ducking down the alley did not count as a failure, but for him personally, it counted as a negative success.  He's at five...the rest of the party got away at six.


----------



## TwoSix (Mar 6, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Man, why do some people think that players are completely re-writing the game world on the fly?
> Disclaimer: I haven't seen the system in full yet, all this is based on all verified information available.



I don't think the system is meant to "re-write", so much as allow it to be written in the first place.  With the caveat, of course, that the DM hasn't written it already.  It's designed to be an aide for non-scripted roleplaying.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Seule said:
			
		

> In the situation you describe, the Streetwise check comes before you pick an alley, to decide which one to run down. If you get a success you pick the right one, if you fail you pick a less useful one. If you fail and easy check you pick the deadend, and if you succeed a hard check you pick the right one and know esactly where to run to get the best footing, or something. Once you are in the deadend alley you are already past streetwise checks and into athletics for climbing, or stealth to hide, or the like.
> 
> --Penn




In 4e guildlines perhaps, but not how I play.  If the player makes his streetwise check before picking where is going, then yes, he knows the right alley to go down (and he can then decide to go down that alley or not...this streetwise check is for information only.  Nothing else comes of it).

If he picks the alley first and then makes his check, then he is in that alley and realized he made a bad choice.

That might not be how 4e is set up, but that is how I feel comfortable playing.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I, as the DM, decided which alley has the way out, not which one the player runs down.  Even the dice don't determine which alley the player runs down.  Only the player makes that decision.




You're describing different situations which should be equally acceptable.

You're being chased by guards and are trying to escape from the city. > I attempt to lose the guards in a dead end alley that I know a special way out of.

or

(failed skill check) You make a wrong turn and find yourself in a dead end alley. > I try to find a way up and over a wall before the guards see me (with a -2 penalty cause I flubbed the first check)

or

I showed you a map and you foolishly chose to hide in a dead end alley with no way out now other than getting past the guards. > Dangit I guess I try to take them out as quickly as I can before they are able to raise an alarm.

Are all interesting conflicts and are different ways of handling the same set of circumstances.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> I think you're overlooking a level of abstraction here. The player doesn't say "I run down Murderer's Alley to elude the guards! I roll a Streetwise check to find a way out!" to which the DM responds based on either of your posited models.
> 
> Instead, the player says "I want to try ducking down an alley and losing the guards, maybe by squeezing through a gap in a fence or diving down a sewer. My Streetwise result is 24."
> 
> To which the DM responds "Well, there's no such escape route down Murderer's Alley, so you don't want to go down there--but there _is_ a sewer grate in the alley between the tinker's shop and the tailor's. You dash into the alley, wrench the grate free, and drop into the tunnel seconds before the guards catch up."




Again, it is a matter of order.

If the player says, "I want to find some side alley I can duck down and escape out of." I would have them make a streetwise check and tell them which alley that is.  It might not be an alley they can get to on this turn...it's too far down the street.

If the player says "I duck down this alley and hide from the guard" then they indeed duck down Murderer's Alley cause that is what they said they were doing.  It is the one they were next to, the one they ducked down to hide.

That to me is one of the big differences in my style to 4e style.  My style doesn't assume any alleyway you see around you could be the one with the escape route in it.  If Murderer's alley is the closest alley and it doesn't have an exit, then the player cannot escape through an alleyway that turn.  A streetwise check, however, would reveal where they needed to go to escape through one next turn.


----------



## Seule (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> If he picks the alley first and then makes his check, then he is in that alley and realized he made a bad choice.




But then you are limiting character abilities by player skill. If the character has a killer streetwise he wouldn't run down that dead-end alley in the first place, even if the player doesn't think to invoke a check. This would be a circumstance where you as DM would hear what the player wants to do (run down an alley and escape) and mandate what skill is involved (streetwise to pick the correct alley) rather than letting the player pick the skill.
If you like doing it the other way, having player knowledge/skill determine what the character does even when the character should know better then you'll have to come up with other justifications than I will in order to use this system.

If you consider that the encounter isn't over until the characters have escaped the city, then space the checks further out. Have one check every 5 minutes or so. Or have one encounter being escaping the chase, and a second getting out of the city, somehow.

  --Penn


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> You're describing different situations which should be equally acceptable.




They are equally acceptable.  Please don't think I am bashing on 4e in all of this.  I am mainly listing the ways in which 4e's potential use of skills differs from the way I play the game.

I am a strong supporter of 4e and I can fully see how this skill system would help a great many DMs and create less prep time.  I just don't know that I would feel comfortable using it.



> You're being chased by guards and are trying to escape from the city. > I attempt to lose the guards in a dead end alley that I know a special way out of.
> 
> or
> 
> ...




Agreed.  They are, and I have no problem with one DM picking one way over the other.  I just know that I feel more comfortable in a defined environment where I know which alleys are where and which ones have escape routes.  It helps me stay organized and consistent.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> And this is where I don't like the 6 success FTW idea in this sort of situation.  As I said before, I would run it so that the only way a player gets out of the city is if they get out of the city.




That's where our styles differ.  I think what you are describing is not using this system; instead, you're using a system where the DM decides if the PCs get out or not, and the dice don't come into it.  A player could roll a success on 20 checks, and end up in prison.  Or the other way around - he could roll 20 failures, but still make it out.

Your way is probably better if you do take the time and care to build such an intricate chase scene!  My only advice would be to make sure the players know how things work - that is, "The only way your PCs will get out of the city is if they get out of the city - successes on the dice may help, if you choose the right actions, but they won't resolve if you get out of the city or not."

Not my style, but if it works for you, go for it.


----------



## Lackhand (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Again, it is a matter of order.
> 
> If the player says, "I want to find some side alley I can duck down and escape out of." I would have them make a streetwise check and tell them which alley that is.  It might not be an alley they can get to on this turn...it's too far down the street.
> 
> ...



I suspect at this point we're agreeing vociferously and just prepending "No" to the beginning of our posts out of habit


----------



## Ingolf (Mar 6, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The players should not add to the game *world*. That is the DMs job.




The players might not be able to add to *your* game world, because you have decided that is your job and yours alone. That's not how it has to work, and I think for the majority of posters in this thread, it's not how we feel it *should* work either. 

Further - why so hung up on whether or not a particular dead-end alleyway has a sewer grate or chink in the fence or other avenue of escape that isn't on the map or in your adventure notes? Is this alleyway crucial to the plot of the larger adventure? Is it someplace that you plan to revisit again and again? If it's a crime scene or the location of the entrance to a secret forbidden temple or something, perhaps so. But if it's just an obstacle in a chase scene or some other "throwaway" location, what does it matter? As an obstacle to be overcome, it should provide a moment of dramatic tension and then the scene moves on - perhaps complicated by the outcome of a die roll, perhaps not. 

How does it *hurt* the game for the player to suggest some aspect of the scene you hadn't included, and then let the dice influence the outcome? Notice I said "influence" and not "decide" - this system seems to leave ample room for DM interpretation.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Seule said:
			
		

> But then you are limiting character abilities by player skill. If the character has a killer streetwise he wouldn't run down that dead-end alley in the first place, even if the player doesn't think to invoke a check. This would be a circumstance where you as DM would hear what the player wants to do (run down an alley and escape) and mandate what skill is involved (streetwise to pick the correct alley) rather than letting the player pick the skill.




Indeed it is limitind a character by player ability.  And in the case of someone who did have a killer streetwise (which I might concede to a 1st lvl character with streetwise trained and skill focused and who had a high stat for it), I would have them roll the check before heading down the alley.  I would do the same for a high level wizard about to fireball a fire-subtype creature; before the action, have them make the check and if they succeed, tell the they are fighting a fire subtype.

But at first level, I don't see the characters having the experience to have that sort of insight.  Just like I don't remind players they are within a creature's reach when they decide to cast a spell not on the defense.



> If you like doing it the other way, having player knowledge/skill determine what the character does even when the character should know better then you'll have to come up with other justifications than I will in order to use this system.
> 
> If you consider that the encounter isn't over until the characters have escaped the city, then space the checks further out. Have one check every 5 minutes or so. Or have one encounter being escaping the chase, and a second getting out of the city, somehow.
> 
> --Penn




Indeed, I might have broken this down into a few phases were I running it my way.  But we are all critiquing a particular template in this case.  There are many things abiout the Escape from Sembia that are very different from how I would run it.


----------



## Seule (Mar 6, 2008)

As long as we all understand exactly where we differ, and why, and that there are multiple valid playstyles, there's not a whole lot left to say.  
Thanks for disagreeing with me with style and thought, jaer.

  --Penn


----------



## Bayonet_Chris (Mar 6, 2008)

*Action Resolution vs Goal Resolution*

You're right - it's a matter of order. Jaer prefers the players make a decision first and they deal with the consequences. Any skill checks are based on "the player performed this action".

It looks like 4th Edition is goal-based. The player says "I am looking for an alley to escape through" and, based on their roll, gets them closer or further from their goal. I envision it more like this:

Thiefy McThievesalot is madly dashing through the market away from the guards and makes a streetwise check. He rolls poorly and goes down the <already pre-defined> dead end on your map. It's not like the marketplace is clear and the guy isn't distracted already. Maybe he could have been headed for the correct alley, but was cut off. It can be anything that thwarts the PC from achieving his desired goal.

A high check of another kind doesn't let him make a secret door where the GM clearly defined there was not one, but may allow him to:
Hide long enough to give him a chance to make a break for the correct alley
Start scaling one of the nearby buildings
Break into one of the buildings making the alleyway

There is nothing that I've seen that forces the GM to automatically make stuff up that he doesn't want to have. Furthermore, you can provide lower difficulties for rational or ingenious solutions to the problem and make it more difficult or nigh-impossible for solutions you consider silly or impractical. A successful roll doesn't have to mean "they've gained a success versus my static number", but it could give them time or a bonus to something else.

Example:

Thiefy has gone down the dead-end alley because of his poor Streetwise roll. The guards are nearby and one spots him, getting his buddies to pin him in.

"We've got you now", they say, grinning to themselves as they advance. 

Our thief, clearly out of options, tries to talk his way out of it. Using bluff (modified by the actual role-playing), he may give himself enough space to make a break for it.

"Wanna see a magic trick?" Thiefy McThievesalot says hastily. The guards hesistate for a moment, unsure of themselves. "Just close your eyes and count to ten and I'll disappear". One of the slower guards looks at him with a confused expression, clearly not getting the joke. He glances at his comrade, who immediately guffaws at the situation. Seeing his chance, Thiefy makes his break. 

At this point he makes his Athletics (or whatever) check, probably with a bonus due to the distraction, to see if he can escape immediately and continue the chase.

At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

LostSoul said:
			
		

> That's where our styles differ.  I think what you are describing is not using this system; instead, you're using a system where the DM decides if the PCs get out or not, and the dice don't come into it.  A player could roll a success on 20 checks, and end up in prison.  Or the other way around - he could roll 20 failures, but still make it out.
> 
> Your way is probably better if you do take the time and care to build such an intricate chase scene!  My only advice would be to make sure the players know how things work - that is, "The only way your PCs will get out of the city is if they get out of the city - successes on the dice may help, if you choose the right actions, but they won't resolve if you get out of the city or not."
> 
> Not my style, but if it works for you, go for it.




You may have just nailed it.  I would have the success of player's actions determine the effect of those actions on the guard, but unless they take advantage of those actions and continue to move out of the city or to some other safe place, then no number of successful rolls will get them out.  They can dodge guards all day long, but until they leave the city...they haven't left!

I've been playing with the same group for over ten years now.  They know my style pretty well.  And I think if they managed to get out of the city without playing it all the way through, they'd sit there going, "WTF?  How are we in the clear?  Aren't the guards still chacing us?"


----------



## Insight (Mar 6, 2008)

I know I'm a little late to the game here, but I'll throw in my 2 cents about the skill challenge system as I experienced it during the preview.

Our DM posed us the scenario: "Escape from the guards and make your way to the rendezvous point outside the city."  Note: I added the idea of a rendezvous point outside the city and the DM went with it, so I doubt that was in the adventure text.

Anyway, I immediately caught on that we were supposed to make a skill check against some sort of challenge level, and, playing the Ranger, I proposed using Athletics and Stealth to climb on the roof and then leap from rooftop to rooftop in order to evade the guards and escape the city.  The DM was vague about how exactly the system worked, and admitted he wasn't sure if I could use two skills for the skill challenge, but allowed it anyway.  I took on a 'medium' challenge and rolled a 27 or something, which apparently blew away the DC and the Ranger escaped.

Others in our group took longer, either because they couldn't figure out which skill to use or rolled poorly.  The Cleric used Religion to hook up with local religious types, who eventually helped spirit him out of the city, while the Warlock used Persuasion (?) and some gold to convince a beggar to swap clothes and escaped the city in disguise.

What I like about the skill challenge system is that it invites the players to get involved in resolving the challenge.  You get to choose how your character deals with the challenge, which is not always the case.  In fact, in most published adventures, there is *one* right answer.

What I didn't like, and maybe this is an illegimitate gripe, is that the DM didn't seem to know how to resolve the challenge, or at least didn't communicate it very well.  For example, it wasn't clear whether making one 'medium' challenge had any effect at all, and what the benefits and drawbacks were with choosing the higher or lower challenges.  It could be that the mod was unclear on the matter; I'd like to see the skill challenge system in more detail before passing final judgment.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 6, 2008)

Insight said:
			
		

> What I like about the skill challenge system is that it invites the players to get involved in resolving the challenge.  You get to choose how your character deals with the challenge, which is not always the case.  In fact, in most published adventures, there is *one* right answer.



That's possible the best thing about it - you get to think about a solution yourself, and since there is no predetermined path, you can do what fits to the characters personality - you know, role-playing stuff. 

That said, I also believe that you can use the framework of the system to create a set of predetermined challenges, and probably use this to get a reasonable XP value or something to reward beating the challenge. The idea is to create a sequence of possible skill uses that lead to success, leaving room for some failures and varying the results based on the degree of success. And this can also lead to interesting role-playing, if you leave enough options and play the individual scenes leading to a check or resolving the check result out.

I remember reading someone writing for the DMG talking/writing about the social encounter rules for 4th edition, and talking about how they would work for both common types of role-playing - describe the scene first, then roll, or roll first, then describe the scene. In a larger context, this seems to apply to this rule, too.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> You may have just nailed it.  I would have the success of player's actions determine the effect of those actions on the guard, but unless they take advantage of those actions and continue to move out of the city or to some other safe place, then no number of successful rolls will get them out.  They can dodge guards all day long, but until they leave the city...they haven't left!
> 
> I've been playing with the same group for over ten years now.  They know my style pretty well.  And I think if they managed to get out of the city without playing it all the way through, they'd sit there going, "WTF?  How are we in the clear?  Aren't the guards still chacing us?"




Well I'm pretty sure the skill check system for the chase assumes a constant running away on the part of the characters. It's not like they standing in place turning over apple carts, it's like a chase scene in a movie where lots of things like this happen over the course of the actual running and leaving the city.

But I agree, if you can take the time to plot out the entire city and where all the alleys and escape routes and major NPCs are, that's far superior and cooler then just using the skill challenge system. But I know very few DMs who could pull that off and make the chase scene feel like a chase scene. If your one of the few who can then more power to you.

The only thing the new system might give you if you are using a more specific simulation of the escape are some rules for under what circumstances somebody escapes or gets caught. Often it's hard to adjudicate what the consequences really are for going down a dead end or other problems. Having successes and failures that add up gives a way to actually determine how close or far the players are from being caught by the guards. Your only other option is to somehow try to calculate the movement rates and positions of all the guards, or making completely arbitrary decisions about weither the players get caught when they run into the deadend or not.


----------



## glass (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> Here is one place I agree with Derren.  I don't know the location of all secrets and NPCs in the world at all time.  I do need to think on my feet.  If I were to run an Escape Scene like the one here, I would however know the exact location of all secrets and all exits.  I would know what was behind the doors and over the walls and I would have a list and placement of all major NPCs the group might encounter.



If those things were already decided, then you don't need any way to decide them. Therefore, the idea about using a skillcheck top decide them becomes irrelevant. You might still use it to decide about pitchforks in hay or non-major NPCs, or you might not. From everything we have heard so far it is a very flexible system so you are still good either way. Still not seeing the problem.


glass.


----------



## glass (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> If he picks the alley first and then makes his check, then he is in that alley and realized he made a bad choice.



How does he 'pick the alley first'. There is no basis for him to make that decision.


glass.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 6, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Hmm, he wrote "check", but I think he wanted to say modifier.



If he did, he was wrong. 



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Which is probably a bit too high, but I think a total modifier of +20 is doable at 3rd level. (I think it's something like 6 ranks, +4 charisma, +4 synergy, +3 circlet of persuasion. That brings you to +17.



Well, if you want to throw in mid-level magic items onto a 2nd level character, I'm sure I can pump the 4e Diplomacy bonus higher, too... But to be pedantic your example has some mistakes and is missing some bonuses.  5 ranks max, +4 cha, +4 bluff/SM synergy, +2 half-elf, +3 skill focus = +18; the 4e example is +15 or +17 depending on what Skill Focus gives in 4e.  One main difference is that while getting a ridiculously high bonus with Diplomacy is pretty easy in 3e, thanks to skill synergies, you can get +14-16 with any skill in 4e by 2nd level.

EDIT: just noticed you said 3rd level; not sure why we started moving the goalposts. 



			
				1of3 said:
			
		

> Hardly so. 4E characters' skills can differ by modifier and training, that's about nine points. In 3E you can easily have a difference of 30+.



...when you get to the upper levels, sure.  The gulf still exists in 4e: ability modifier, training, skill focus, racial aura bonuses, item bonuses, etc.  It's not as high, but it's still a huge difference, especially at lower levels where it's easy to front-load bonuses for ridiculously high skill bonuses.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> You may have just nailed it.  I would have the success of player's actions determine the effect of those actions on the guard, but unless they take advantage of those actions and continue to move out of the city or to some other safe place, then no number of successful rolls will get them out.  They can dodge guards all day long, but until they leave the city...they haven't left!
> 
> I've been playing with the same group for over ten years now.  They know my style pretty well.  And I think if they managed to get out of the city without playing it all the way through, they'd sit there going, "WTF?  How are we in the clear?  Aren't the guards still chacing us?"




I think it's safe to assume the skill challenge rules will _not_ be designed such that six skill checks magically defeat any challenge. I daresay the structure of designing a skill challenge probably involves the step of "set a goal" somewhere in the process, probably as the very first step. Obviously, actions which do _not_ move the players toward that goal aren't going to help with the skill challenge.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

FadedC said:
			
		

> The only thing the new system might give you if you are using a more specific simulation of the escape are some rules for under what circumstances somebody escapes or gets caught. Often it's hard to adjudicate what the consequences really are for going down a dead end or other problems. Having successes and failures that add up gives a way to actually determine how close or far the players are from being caught by the guards. Your only other option is to somehow try to calculate the movement rates and positions of all the guards, or making completely arbitrary decisions about weither the players get caught when they run into the deadend or not.




The system, if nothing else, does inspire different ways to do things.  I will take what I feel comfortable integrating and drop the rest.



			
				glass said:
			
		

> If those things were already decided, then you don't need any way to decide them. Therefore, the idea about using a skillcheck top decide them becomes irrelevant. You might still use it to decide about pitchforks in hay or non-major NPCs, or you might not. From everything we have heard so far it is a very flexible system so you are still good either way. Still not seeing the problem.
> 
> 
> glass.




No problem at all.  Perhaps my "agree with Derren" statement was a little to non-specific. I see where he is coming from, and it is from a similar DM style that I take: Know where everything is and who everyone is before had so that surprised don't come up.  I have determined where everything is, so you are right, I don't need a die roll to tell me if there is or isn't something there.

This is where Derren and I differ: I don't have a problem with 4e supporting a different skill style than mine, especially because I can see how this style would work for other people.    I am still all for 4e, and my comments here were a discussion about how this system doesn't mesh with my style and why.  It was not meant to convince people that my way was best, and shame on WotC for not doing it my way.



> How does he 'pick the alley first'. There is no basis for him to make that decision.




I had stated that, were I designing and running an escape scenario like this, the players would have a map of their general surroundings.  If they knew the city (it was their home base), they would be able to see the whole map.  If not (fairly new arrivals) it would be covered and they would only generally know where the front gate was.  But they would have a detailed picture of what they could see.

Even if they didn't have a map to say "this alley," it happens easy enough.

PC: I want to duck down an alley way and hide.
DM: There is only one you can get to this round with your movement.  The others are farther away than you can move.
PC: Okay, then I duck down the one I can reach.

Even if the PCs don't have a map and are reliant upon my description, I do have a map and I know what they can and can't get to based on that map.  They can pick a dead end alley on my map without me ever needing to to show them where they are on a map, so long as I know where they are.


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

Seule said:
			
		

> As long as we all understand exactly where we differ, and why, and that there are multiple valid playstyles, there's not a whole lot left to say.
> Thanks for disagreeing with me with style and thought, jaer.
> 
> --Penn




I think we do and that they are!  Any time!  I enjoy a good discussion.

Honestly, this thread has put the free-form DMing in a better light for me, and helped me understand the concepts of it better, so thanks to all of you who have made this a pleasent little discussion!


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 6, 2008)

Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn towards "compare the relative merits of jaer's system and the 4E system", I guess I might as well make another comment...

Sorry jaer, but I would never want to use your system. I don't even hold it as an ideal I would pursue if I had enough time to pull it off. I like thinking on my feet, and I hate providing so much detail as knowing every road in a whole town. I much prefer the more freeform, improvisational interpretation of 4E's skill rules, where players can help define things by their choices.

That said, I think you indirectly quoted me at one point, and in doing so you misunderstood my point.

You said something like "if you succeed at a diplomacy check, the guard is corrupt, but he is not corrupt if you fail the check", and mentioned the honest guard captain. This seems based on one of my examples, but is not an accurate interpretation of them.

In my example, the guard encountered by the PC is determined _before_ the check, not after. In my case, it would be determined by which kind of difficulty the PC wanted for the check. In some other case, it might be determined by random chance. Either way, the guard captain is probably going to be a character who was designed by the DM beforehand. and will continue to exist afterwards. Once the situation is set up, the Diplomacy check is resolved like a normal one, with the player trying to influence a predefined character. I guess I should use an example...

DM: Alright, your easy, untrained Streetwise check just failed, so you get totally lost and stuck in an alley. You hear guards coming up behind you quickly.
Player: Well, I will try to negotiate with the first guard who comes up, and explain to him how their king is the real villain and is deceiving them (the truth).
DM: Alright, Diplomacy then. Another Easy check?
Player: No way, I'll go for a Hard.
DM:  Alright then... A guard rushes by to check the alley you are in, and spots you. Amazingly enough, it turns out to be the captain of the guard himself.
Player: You mean that loyal paladin who was standing behind the king during the fake trial? Err... I explain to him about how all the evidence used in that trial was faked by the king's wizard. *rolls a natural twenty*   
DM:  Well, he looks confused and conflicted. Other guards run up as you hide in the alley, asking him if he has seen you. He hesitantly says that he hasn't seen anything, and leads them away. You can take this chance to escape and meet up with your friends.

This is the kind of situation I would like.  I actually really like the idea of the level of challenge being transparent and decided by the player, simply because it makes things somewhat more tactical, and would make it easier for me to decide how to set up situations. Also, I hate mapping, so I would run this kind of thing with just general places, with the layout being indistinct and controlled by narrative necessity rather than predetermined ideas of my own.


----------



## Wolfwood2 (Mar 6, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> I had stated that, were I designing and running an escape scenario like this, the players would have a map of their general surroundings.  If they knew the city (it was their home base), they would be able to see the whole map.  If not (fairly new arrivals) it would be covered and they would only generally know where the front gate was.  But they would have a detailed picture of what they could see.
> 
> Even if they didn't have a map to say "this alley," it happens easy enough.
> 
> ...




I think your use of "this round with your movement" is telling.

One of the differences between a skill-based encounter and a combat encounter is that a skill-based encounter doesn't necessarily have to be tracked round-by-round and in terms of tactical movement.  Tactical movement is just an abstraction, as proven by the diagonals thing, and it's easy to abstract it even more.

One skill check could represent a full minute of running from the guards instead of a single round.  Even if a character didn't know the city, they might still ask to use Streetwise for their general knowledge and gut instinct on how urban areas are laid out to make it easier to get a lead on the guards or find a fence they can climb over fast.  (Probably at a higher DC for not knowing the area, of course.)


----------



## jaer (Mar 6, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> Since this discussion seems to have taken a turn towards "compare the relative merits of jaer's system and the 4E system", I guess I might as well make another comment...
> 
> Sorry jaer, but I would never want to use your system. I don't even hold it as an ideal I would pursue if I had enough time to pull it off. I like thinking on my feet, and I hate providing so much detail as knowing every road in a whole town. I much prefer the more freeform, improvisational interpretation of 4E's skill rules, where players can help define things by their choices.




No problem!  I would never suggest my way was best.  Only that it is mine.  I feel that the maps and the planning helps me be organized, which I typically am not.  By doing as much prep work a head of time, it helps me stay on track and keep a handle of the situation.  Not that I don't let my players do whatever they like...I do!  And I don't shut them down for being creative: I do my best to reward it.

But I feel most comfortable when I can fully see and understand the surrounds.



> That said, I think you indirectly quoted me at one point, and in doing so you misunderstood my point.
> 
> You said something like "if you succeed at a diplomacy check, the guard is corrupt, but he is not corrupt if you fail the check", and mentioned the honest guard captain. This seems based on one of my examples, but is not an accurate interpretation of them.




I was refering to this.  I did not misunderstand, but my example got twisted in the writing and came out all wrong.  I knew you meant the player determined the corruption of the guard by picking the DC, which is a concept I have an equally hard time wrapping my head around, to be honest.



> In my example, the guard encountered by the PC is determined _before_ the check, not after. In my case, it would be determined by which kind of difficulty the PC wanted for the check. In some other case, it might be determined by random chance. Either way, the guard captain is probably going to be a character who was designed by the DM beforehand. and will continue to exist afterwards. Once the situation is set up, the Diplomacy check is resolved like a normal one, with the player trying to influence a predefined character. I guess I should use an example...
> 
> DM: Alright, your easy, untrained Streetwise check just failed, so you get totally lost and stuck in an alley. You hear guards coming up behind you quickly.
> Player: Well, I will try to negotiate with the first guard who comes up, and explain to him how their king is the real villain and is deceiving them (the truth).
> ...




Again, my problem with this comes from the fact that, as I play it, The Jaer Style (TJS) (tm), I would know where the captain of the guard is and know who he was following.  I couldn't just have him teleport to where this player is.

Also I have a difficult time with the idea of the player, in an alley, knowing the guard is coming, and saying "What level of challenge do you want to come around the corner at you?"

Or, in this situation.  The player, instead of trying to negotiate, tries to hide.

DM: How much do you want to conceal yourself?
PC: Medium amount.  <rolls low>  Crap.
DM: The guard walks cautiously around the corner, shield raised high, fully expecting an ambush.  He strolls in slowly, using his mace to prod the barrels you hid behind.  He's spotted you, and shouts "Hey!  Come out of there!"
PC:  Okay...I'll negotiate.

As the DM, do I give him the choice of picking medium (normal guard) or easy (corrupt guard) or hard (the greatsword weilding paladin who was behind the king at the...wait a tick...this guy wa already discribed as a regular guard with a mace!)...well, can't be hard.  So medium or easy?  What if a few other people picked easy...how many corrupt guards are in this city?

When do I, as a DM, stop the players from deciding what level of DC they are rolling against?  And how do I justify that to players?  "Sorry, you can't pick an easy negotiation DC because two other people already did it, and there is no way there are that many shady guards in this city!"


----------



## Insight (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> When do I, as a DM, stop the players from deciding what level of DC they are rolling against?  And how do I justify that to players?  "Sorry, you can't pick an easy negotiation DC because two other people already did it, and there is no way there are that many shady guards in this city!"




That's too easy.  Give the PCs x number of attempts.  If they don't get a certain number of "victories" in those attempts, they fail the challenge.  Then, the adventure moves along.

I think you guys are making this harder than it has to be.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> No problem!  I would never suggest my way was best.  Only that it is mine.  I feel that the maps and the planning helps me be organized, which I typically am not.  By doing as much prep work a head of time, it helps me stay on track and keep a handle of the situation.  Not that I don't let my players do whatever they like...I do!  And I don't shut them down for being creative: I do my best to reward it.
> 
> But I feel most comfortable when I can fully see and understand the surrounds.



I can respect that.  



> I was refering to this.  I did not misunderstand, but my example got twisted in the writing and came out all wrong.  I knew you meant the player determined the corruption of the guard by picking the DC, which is a concept I have an equally hard time wrapping my head around, to be honest.



To be honest, I am still wrapping my head around that one as well. I like involving players in that way, and it seems to be one of the few ways to make the penalty for losing an easy challenge and the benefit for accomplishing a difficult challenge fair to the players (I dislike adjudicating that kind of thing based on my own whims, and I am not sure how to do it otherwise), but it does bring up some issues.




> Again, my problem with this comes from the fact that, as I play it, The Jaer Style (TJS) (tm), I would know where the captain of the guard is and know who he was following.  I couldn't just have him teleport to where this player is.



Well, this is where my own abstractions lead to a different result than your determinations. I would not know such a thing. In fact, I probably would not even know exactly where the PC is, how many guards are chasing him, or how far he is from the rest of the party. Instead, I would know a _rough_ area of where things are likely to be, and anything which is not defined by a previous open decision on my part would have an even chance of being everywhere.

I guess you can say I prefer a Quantum approach compared to your Newtonian one. Rather than keeping track of every character's exact state, I would just keep track of potential states.

In other words, the guard captain did not teleport there. Instead, he had a certain probability of following any of the characters, and his position only matters once his position is already known by the players. Once that is established, he will not just randomly appear before any other PC unless he has a good reason to based on his last appearance, because he now has a determined place.



> Also I have a difficult time with the idea of the player, in an alley, knowing the guard is coming, and saying "What level of challenge do you want to come around the corner at you?"
> 
> Or, in this situation.  The player, instead of trying to negotiate, tries to hide.
> 
> ...



Well, as I said above, I am still working this out and probably won't figure it out 100% until I own the 4E DMG and have run a game session or two, so I hope you will forgive me if my answers are a bit vague for now. But, I think the problem you are having with my example is that you are forgetting that any decision I make will be improvisational, not based on preparations. I would not lay out a list before starting of how various actions might work, I would just make them up on the fly.

Certainly, it doesn't make sense for someone I mentioned was a normal guard earlier turned out to magically be the guard captain. In that case, I would come up with a different reason why the roll might be difficult and potentially rewarding, and there would be no logical reason at all to restrict the PC's options. Similarly, just because one player had an easy time negotiating with a corrupt guard does not mean that any other "easy" guards will also be corrupt. Instead, other skill checks might be based on other factors I invent to be unique to each case. As such, a few of the problems you state above are not actually relevant.

Anyways, since D&D 4E is supposed to be a game about saying yes to players, I would not restrict a player from doing something at any point. Keeping things varied and interesting in the game is my job, after all, and it is better if I use my own creativity rather than restrict my player's. Well, I might make a rule that says you can't use the exact same skill twice in a row in the same skill encounter, but that would be just to keep things more interesting.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Mar 7, 2008)

Just a quick thought these multi-stage skill-challenges would be wonderful for things like opening-locks, etc.

It can be like:

Easy: You do it but at a very intimate and longer-manner. Add a extra 2 rolls. 
Medium: You do it at your regular speed and attention. No extra rolls.
Hard: You try to break the lock as fast as you can. Reduce 2 rolls, at failure the lock is broken and must be bashed down.

Just imagine that kind of system, during a fight-sequence where the rest of the party is fending off monsters each round while you try to pick the lock.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 7, 2008)

I'm writing up a 4e adventure I'm going to run this weekend, and I've got three of these extended skill encounters in mind.

The first is going to be the PCs negotiating a continuation of an alliance with a dwarven lord. The PCs will have to convince him that it is in his best interest to at least go into talks with the human alliance. He's got an open mind toward it, but the humans are at war, and he isn't sure he wants to send his troops into battle. If they succeed 5 times, he will begin talks, if they fail 4 times, he will send them on his way. It will be free form, with the PCs deciding which skills to use and how to use them. (I'm still considering the consequences of capsizing.)

The second will be riding a boat through an underground river. The PCs will have to make set checks as they come up to keep the boat from capsizing. There will be five checks and three failures (a majority) will mean it capsizes. It will be athletics, acrobatics, perception, and two endurance checks. All PCs will have to roll, and there will have to be 2 successes or I'll mark off a failure. As an added trick, the PCs are having to carry the boat down the tunnels to the river and if they drop it or throw it down (they have to take a standard action to place it down safely), it will have to make a save or take a tick of failure before they even get wet (due to damage).

The third challenge will be convincing the black dragon to allow them to pass. They should be used to skill encounters by then, and they have to make 3 successes. One failure indicates the dragon attacks. If they succeed it will agree to let them pass in exchange for their magic items (which they should have at this point in the adventure). I made this one purposely difficult, 'cause its a freakin' black dragon.


----------



## Kraydak (Mar 7, 2008)

While I am not enthused by the mechanics described (not all skills are equally useful in a given situation, and players dictating aspects of the world annoys me), I do find myself wishing someone had decided to use a Cleave (or other attack) to-hit roll as their "skill" check, and fled Sembia by using sharp pointy death as cover.  Heck, it makes a lot more sense than sitting around playing performing acrobat while the guard catches up.


----------



## LostSoul (Mar 7, 2008)

ThirdWizard said:
			
		

> (I'm still considering the consequences of capsizing.)




I would suggest using the things the players say to determine the result of failure.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> While I am not enthused by the mechanics described (not all skills are equally useful in a given situation, and players dictating aspects of the world annoys me), I do find myself wishing someone had decided to use a Cleave (or other attack) to-hit roll as their "skill" check, and fled Sembia by using sharp pointy death as cover. Heck, it makes a lot more sense than sitting around playing performing acrobat while the guard catches up.




I think that, as DM, you will have the authority to determine what makes sense and what doesn't.  If you don't think playing acrobat will help them succeed, tell the player to do something else.


----------



## keterys (Mar 7, 2008)

Going up and meleeing them would have basically been an autofailure in this case - the characters just aren't _that_ cool


----------



## Kraydak (Mar 7, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> Going up and meleeing them would have basically been an autofailure in this case - the characters just aren't _that_ cool




Ah, but remember the players get to dictate reality, to wit, 2 stupid (and weak, minions for the autokill) guards who split off from the main group!

Maybe to investigate a thrown stone.

Without telling anyone else.

Because they forgot to read the Evil Overlord list thingy.


----------



## hong (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Ah, but remember the players get to dictate reality, to wit, 2 stupid (and weak, minions for the autokill) guards who split off from the main group!




Pish tosh. Consensus reality includes the DM.


----------



## glass (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Ah, but remember the players get to dictate reality



*No they don't!*

Seriously, the idea that players can dictate reality to the DM was Derren's nightmare, not anything actually supported by the previews we have seen.


glass.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 7, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> While I am not enthused by the mechanics described (not all skills are equally useful in a given situation, and players dictating aspects of the world annoys me), I do find myself wishing someone had decided to use a Cleave (or other attack) to-hit roll as their "skill" check, and fled Sembia by using sharp pointy death as cover.  Heck, it makes a lot more sense than sitting around playing performing acrobat while the guard catches up.



Remember, it is a colloborative effort. If the chosen skill doesn't make sense, explain the player, or just don't count the result. What exactly you do depends on the situation at hand...


----------



## Derren (Mar 7, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> *No they don't!*
> 
> Seriously, the idea that players can dictate reality to the DM was Derren's nightmare, not anything actually supported by the previews we have seen.
> 
> ...




Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a  priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.

But probably the adventure was written (or the DMs instructed) so that the players succeed no matter what they do to keep the adventure on track and to show of all the "cool" moves.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 7, 2008)

glass said:
			
		

> *No they don't!*
> 
> Seriously, the idea that players can dictate reality to the DM was Derren's nightmare, not anything actually supported by the previews we have seen.




i'm sorry, but are you implying that derren was wrong in assuming that pc's can conjure up +5  holy avengers any time they want to?


----------



## The Little Raven (Mar 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a  priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.




No, it doesn't. It indicates that the players made proposals for actions based on character capabilities and the DM let them give it a shot. Just like every other previous edition of D&D, where someone would come up with something that isn't clearly delineated by any exact rule, and the DM says "Yeah, okay. Give me a roll."

Maybe that kind of DM-player relationship and leniency is foreign to you, but it's pretty common to most of the rest of us. A DM can allow things, if he thinks they'll work, or he can just say "No." The fact that one DM in one situation at one convention said yes indicates nothing about anyone dictating anything. That's just a fantasy you've concocted for whatever reason to construe a guy allowing players to be creative with methods of escape as some kind of negative aspect of 4th Edition because you're clearly bent on not liking it at all costs.


----------



## jaer (Mar 7, 2008)

Insight said:
			
		

> That's too easy.  Give the PCs x number of attempts.  If they don't get a certain number of "victories" in those attempts, they fail the challenge.  Then, the adventure moves along.
> 
> I think you guys are making this harder than it has to be.




My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill."  And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).

The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.

It's logical justification for such things that make PCs being able to pick easy, medium, or hard difficult for me to grasp as a concept and to play out and describe as a DM.

I suppose it is just as likely that the easy diplomacy check could represent the character stopping his running and turning and talking to the guard.  It allows him to be heard better and shows a certain amount of trust and he is no longer running.  The guard however, catches up so if the gamble fails, he's right there.  The harder DC could represent the PC booking at full speed, yelling back whatever he can.  He's not making a a strong argument and is more concerned about getting away, but if he says something that strikes a cord with the guard, the guard falters in the running and the PC increases his lead.

I have always been a fan of one roll with multiple DCs for varying results.  There would be easy, medium, and hard, but since the PCs weren't shooting for one, they could get any of them.  The PCs trying to get an audience with a local lord.  They roll one check and if they hit DC 15, they would get an appointment in a week or so.  DC 25, it would be a couple days.  DC 30, and it's "wait here, we'll see if he's free right now for you."

This new system seems as thought the PCs would pick which one they wanted, and if they tried for the harder, "right now" check and failed...it is a failed check on all accounts.  Obviously as the DM I can say that it was high enough to get them an appointment within a couple days and not have it be a total failure, but I am curious to see what the skill section says about this.  Previously I rewarded skill checks that were extremely greater than the DC.  This system might be limiting that since, if someone picked an east DC and someone else picked a hard one, and they both end up rolling natural 20s and getting the same results, the fact that one was a harder DC should sway the action more than the amount the roll beat the DC (if that made any sense).


----------



## Insight (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill."  And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).
> 
> The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.
> 
> ...




I guess I can see where there's some margin for error _based on what little we know now_.  That's no reason, however, to assume that there isn't something in the system that prevents players from always taking the easy way out.  We have to speculate at this point, because we haven't seen the final product.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 7, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.



I take it you haven't seen The Sound Of Music? 

As I mentioned, the only difference I see between the DM deciding ahead of time that the PC cleric will be able to get help from his religious contacts to escape the city, and deciding that he will be able to do so based on a suggestion from the cleric's player is that one happens before the game and one happens during the game.



> But probably the adventure was written (or the DMs instructed) so that the players succeed no matter what they do to keep the adventure on track and to show of all the "cool" moves.



You mean that the DM is still in charge and that the PCs can only succeed with his tacit agreement? What a remarkable thing.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 7, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill."  And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).
> 
> The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.
> 
> ...



Well, if you don't like my approach of having players decide reality, maybe you can think of it another way. The difficulty of a diplomacy check is based on what kind of demands the PC is making upon the person he is negotiating with. An easy check means the player is not asking for as much, or might offer a lot more than he otherwise needs to. A hard check means he is asking a lot from the person he is negotiating with and offering little, and is thus taking a gamble in hope of a bigger payoff.



> I have always been a fan of one roll with multiple DCs for varying results.  There would be easy, medium, and hard, but since the PCs weren't shooting for one, they could get any of them.  The PCs trying to get an audience with a local lord.  They roll one check and if they hit DC 15, they would get an appointment in a week or so.  DC 25, it would be a couple days.  DC 30, and it's "wait here, we'll see if he's free right now for you."
> 
> This new system seems as thought the PCs would pick which one they wanted, and if they tried for the harder, "right now" check and failed...it is a failed check on all accounts.  Obviously as the DM I can say that it was high enough to get them an appointment within a couple days and not have it be a total failure, but I am curious to see what the skill section says about this.  Previously I rewarded skill checks that were extremely greater than the DC.  This system might be limiting that since, if someone picked an east DC and someone else picked a hard one, and they both end up rolling natural 20s and getting the same results, the fact that one was a harder DC should sway the action more than the amount the roll beat the DC (if that made any sense).



Well, I really do like the idea of asking a player making a trade-off, rather than just rewarding high rolls and punishing low rolls, so I won't agree with you here. A player can try to take an easy road at a risk, or can try to go for a bonus with a higher chance of failure. It requires the player to make meaningful choices even in a basic skill check, rather than leaving everything up to a lucky or unlucky roll.


----------



## dotreptile (Mar 7, 2008)

I ran a playtest/preview adventure last night that contained a skill challenge. Here's how it worked:

The party was in a small village that had seen a rash of nighttime kidnappings in the past few weeks. They were asked to guard the city for a night. I made guarding the city a skill challenge.

The players were pretty creative in their ideas. One PC used his Thievery ability to check the locks on the buildings where potential kidnap victims would be sleeping, while another used his Nature ability to set some traps (similar to what one would do when camping) to help alert him if someone tried to sneak by. His critical success in this (he attempted a difficult check and succeeded) allowed him an additional check, Streetwise, to place the traps in likely locations, for another success. Other characters made Perception or Stealth checks, and one even used Diplomacy to convince a few of the townfolk to help keep watch. 

When I wrote up my notes on the adventure, I put down some skill usage ideas in case my players got stuck and needed help coming up with uses for their skills. None of them needed help. They succeeded in the skill challenge and were able to get the drop on the kidnappers, for a significant advantage in the combat (they took out the leader before he even acted). If they'd failed the challenge, they would have been surprised by the kidnappers.

It seemed to work really well, and I'll definitely be using these types of encounters again.


----------



## Nightson (Mar 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Actually the examples of the cleric using religion to gather a crowd (still ok) or get a  priest to smuggle you out of the city do indicate that the player can dictate reality.




No, it means that players can say what they _want _to do, DMs decide whether it's allowable or not, and then the player gets to make a check to actually carry it out.  This isn't some newfangled 4th edition use of skills it's the way that the game already works for just about everybody.  The only difference with 4th edition is it's trying to present newer DMs and players with the specific framework to accomplish it.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 8, 2008)

I don't know if this has found it's way through the news report, so I figured I would post a relevant portion to this thread with the full link:

http://www.critical-hits.com/2008/03/01/dd-xp-random-crunchy-bits/

RPGA GM: Skill Challenges. It was summed up as before you make a skill check, you pick if you want low, medium, or high difficulty. The higher the roll needed, the greater the reward if you pull it off. In the game, the same mechanic was used to use Streetwise to navigate a city, negotiate with a merchant, and move stealthily through the streets. Another example given to me by another player was in a bazaar they were able to combine a Thievery check with the Wizard casting Mage Hand to bring a tent down while they grabbed some stuff.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 8, 2008)

On the issue of players changing the gameworld: I think that this is the deliberate intent of 4e design. It fits with what is said in W&M about the design logic of PoL. It continues the trend of 3E - first we had player mechanical empowerment (via systematic and elaborate rules for character build and action resolution) and now we are seeing player narrative epowerment (via fortune-in-the-middle mechanics that allow players to determine those ingame elements that explain their PCs successes or failures).

This also gives the lie to the notion that the game is becoming more video-gamey - player narrative empowerment is one of the major respects in which a tabletop RPG can _differ_ from a computer game.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> My point was I have difficulty making sense of the PC saying "I want to make an easy negotiation skill."  And easy climb vs a hard one, I can see numerous ways this could go (different walls, using the environment to help you get over but taking more time).
> 
> The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.



I'm interpreting this a little differently.

I'm imagining the the choice between "easy, medium, and hard" is a little less concrete.  A character can look for something to climb over, and can press for the appropriate advantage between jumping someone's fence, climbing to the roof of a low building, or scaling the glass towers of the Wizard's School; but they wouldn't get to decide to do the hard thing and insist that they get the easy roll.

Likewise, if someone wants to use their diplomacy to bribe the guards, the ease of that check would depend on the likelihood of there being bribable guards.  In the crime ridden, shady back corners of a corrupt metropolis, sure it might be an easy check, but in the hallowed streets of a city full of paladins, it could very well be impossible.


----------



## Mentat55 (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Likewise, if someone wants to use their diplomacy to bribe the guards, the ease of that check would depend on the likelihood of there being bribable guards.  In the crime ridden, shady back corners of a corrupt metropolis, sure it might be an easy check, but in the hallowed streets of a city full of paladins, it could very well be impossible.



 The way I might look at the Diplomacy check is this:

Easy -- you smooth-talk your way past the guards.
Medium -- you smooth-talk your way past the guards and convince them that they never saw you.
Hard -- as Medium, but you also manage to convince the guards that a dangerous criminal element is chasing you, you describe them, and get them to at least interfere with those people, if not outright arrest them.

So it does not always have to be "are there corrupt guards" or "is there a secret door at the end of this alley" but rather "just how much can I convince the guards to do on my behalf" or "how canny am I at ducking and dodging through back alleys, back doors, and condemned buildings, so that I can evade my pursuers".


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> So it does not always have to be "are there corrupt guards"



My response was in reference to a hypothetical player though who was _trying_ to bribe corrupt guards.

The system shouldn't be a "I use skill X, now tell me what happens" and I'm hoping that it encourages players to come up with the actions of their characters, but stops them short of dictating the outcomes of their actions.

I don't want "I use diplomacy with an easy roll, tell me how I get past the guards." and I don't want "I diplomacize the captain of the guards with a bribe so that he escorts me out of the city and gives me his horse."


----------



## DandD (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I don't want "I diplomacize the captain of the guards with a bribe so that he escorts me out of the city and gives me his horse."



Why not?


----------



## D'karr (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I'm interpreting this a little differently.
> 
> I'm imagining the the choice between "easy, medium, and hard" is a little less concrete.  A character can look for something to climb over, and can press for the appropriate advantage between jumping someone's fence, climbing to the roof of a low building, or scaling the glass towers of the Wizard's School; but they wouldn't get to decide to do the hard thing and insist that they get the easy roll.
> 
> Likewise, if someone wants to use their diplomacy to bribe the guards, the ease of that check would depend on the likelihood of there being bribable guards.  In the crime ridden, shady back corners of a corrupt metropolis, sure it might be an easy check, but in the hallowed streets of a city full of paladins, it could very well be impossible.




In our specific game, we did not choose easy, medium or hard.  We did not know the difference.  We described what our characters wanted to do and consulted with the DM if we could.  HE DECIDED whether the action was appropriate and advanced us towards the goal.  HE DECIDED whether the specific skill use was appropriate or not.  And finally HE DECIDED what the difficulty of the action would be based on what the action was, not the other way around.  We did not know the target number for the particular action.  The only thing that he told us was whether an action would have a penalty (e.g. using Religion instead of Diplomacy or Bluff to incite the crowd) or if the action had a bonus (circumstance due to other actions or setting).  So the DM made ALL the important and relevant decisions.

I don't really know where this notion, that the players somehow "magically" shaped the environment to something that it was not, comes from.  The descriptions the players used were appropriate for the description of the setting they were given.  This whole interaction occured without a map.  It was all based on DM description.   

So the interaction went something like this.

*RULES SETUP*
DM: Quick rundown of the mechanics of this type of encounter.  You are being chased by guards and you want to escape the town.  The object is to have more successes towards your goal than failures.  You may use any skill to accomplish your goal _but only successes that advance you towards your goal_ count for the purpose of achieving your goal.  You can choose one of several paths to get to your goal.  Everyone can choose the same path or you may spread out as desired.  The *best way, for me,* to adjudicate your success is for you to describe what your character wants to *attempt to accomplish*.  Then you will roll using the skill you have chosen.  If you have a success at your attempt you gain a success for your team.  If you fail at your attempt you gain a failure for your team.  The object is to *continue getting successes towards your goal* before getting too many failures.  You will not know how many successes or failures are needed.

*SCENE SETUP*
DM:  After your fight in the town square you are being chased by the town guard and you can hear the general alarm being raised.  You suspect more guards will soon join in the chase.  You may attempt to escape the town (goal) using one of these three locations: Market Place, Crowded Street, or Dark Alley.

Please roll initiative and decide in initiative order which path to escape you want to take.

Players: I go towards X (Four Players decided to take the market place, one went for the dark alley and the last went for the crowded street)

DM:  Okay, the market place is bustling with activity.  You see people trading goods, market stalls vehicle carts being pulled by horses, etc.  It is quite crowded and you can see some guards starting to come into the area.  They have not noticed you yet and are still behind.  Player 1, what would you like to do?

Player 1:  I approach one of the horse handlers.  "Please sir, I've always had a fascination for horses and yours look so magnificent.  Would you mind if I climbed *into* one of the sacks to view your horse more closely?"  I'd like to use diplomacy to attempt to convince the man to let me get into one of the sacks. I'd like to hide from the guards there.

DM: (DM and group laughing)  Okay, make your diplomacy roll.  The man looks skeptical but gives a hearty laugh, "You want to do what?"

Player 1: I rolled an X (If I remember correctly the player aced this roll with a nat 20)

DM:  Good, that's a success.  The man still looks a little skeptical but he allows you to climb into one of the sacks.  The guards have still not seen you.  Player 2, what would you like to do?

SCENE CONTINUES WITH ALL PLAYERS

This went on with each player taking turns in initiative order.  Each player described what his character wanted to *attempt* and the DM decided whether the specific skill was appropriate, whether the environment had what the player was looking for, whether there where any penalties or bonuses based on what was going on, and the consequences of successes and failures.  So the notion that "secret" doors appeared out of nowhere at all games are a silly generalization and are just ill-conceived.  Of course there was table variance across the convention.  Is that a bad thing?  Some DM's DECIDED to keep the outcome close to the vest.  Others gave the players all the metagame information and had them roll based on that metagame information.  Some DM's chose to not alter the environment as they saw it or had described it; some DM's did.

The fact of the matter is that the rules subsystem for skill challenges was able to support each and every one of those play styles and still worked.  The system provided the DM with a solid framework on which to BUILD and RUN the encounter.  That is more a credit to the system than some are willing to concede, mostly due to their anti-4e sentiment.

I'll reiterate my earlier point about the Skill Challenges system.  The "beauty" of it is that IT IS PART OF THE CORE RULES of 4e.  It provides a "newbie" DM a framework on which to build interesting encounters and it is explained in the core rules.

I've been playing D&D for nearly 30 years.  I love 3.5.  I play 3.5 with the same fast, furious and loose abandon that I played my Basic (Magenta Box) D&D.  But I learned to play that way with the less RULES RESTRICTIVE editions.

I remember all the talk when 3.0 and 3.5 came out.  At that time some were complaining that the game restricted their creativity and it took the "decisions" out of their hands and put them in the rules.  I never really subscribed to this idea, but I had learned to play at a different time, with much less rules restrictive play.  I had learned that my job as DM was to adjudicate the outcome of situations, using the rules if they existed and "winging" it if they didn't.  A player would ask, "can I do this?"  and I'd say, "sure you think it will be hard but you can try, roll percentile dice."  I didn't have to resort to looking a specific rule in a book, sometimes even if a rule did exist.  I still play in a similar manner but characters now have appropriate skills and use a d20, instead of d100.  So now it is slightly easier to adjudicate those things.

But a DM that learned to play using a newer edition, might feel way more constrained with the rules and bound to follow them to the extreme.  This is sometimes detrimental.  How many rules arguments have you seen at tables?

I think this system is briliant in that it provides a building block for the DM to create very interesting encounters that have that free-form looseness.  While at the same time the encounter has a solid mechanic as a framework to fall back on.  In addition, it reverts the decision making back to the DM instead of the rules.

I'm not totally exited about all the changes in 4e, but this I like; I like it a lot.


----------



## Derren (Mar 8, 2008)

One question for all who played this adventure, did the DM in your game turn down a proposed usage of a skill  when you tried to do something impossible or did this skill check not count for the challenge as far as you could tell when it didn't really contribute anything to the escape?


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> One question for all who played this adventure, did the DM in your game turn down a proposed usage of a skill  when you tried to do something impossible or did this skill check not count for the challenge as far as you could tell when it didn't really contribute anything to the escape?



I know I turned down at least one skill usage when i was running it.  I can't remember what it was right now, mind you.  I think someone wanted to use Acrobatics to roll up the wall of a building rather than Athletics to climb up the wall.  I think someone else wanted to use Nature to determine if there was a ravine in town and I turned it down saying that there were no ravines in town so it wouldn't work.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Why not?



Not every player is going to be a disruptive schmuck who thinks it's their rules-given right to take advantage of a system like this, but the design should protect you from them anyway.

Otherwise you end up wasting way too much time saying "no" to Holy Avengers.




			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> HE DECIDED



You do realize that's exactly what I was saying my interpretation was, right?


----------



## D'karr (Mar 8, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> You do realize that's exactly what I was saying my interpretation was, right?




Yes, yes I do.

I had used your quote because it was responding to the same type of comment and also because in the game I played in, the DM determine whether OUR ACTIONS were easy, medium or hard.  We did not state "I'm going for easy," and then roll.

Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 8, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Sorry for the confusion.



I was afraid I had gone too long without any sleep.   I kept re-reading what I had written to see what I had mixed up.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 10, 2008)

*Majoru Oakheart -*

Since you were one of the few to run this encounter, do you have any other inside information for us?  What some of the upfront advice may have been?  Were there any predetermined DCs?  What did the write up say about the three avenues to complete the goal (Marketplace, Busy Street, etc.)?  How much was guided by the adventure, and how much by the players themselves?


----------



## Domon (Mar 10, 2008)

> but the design should protect you from them anyway.




i don't think so... being a friend should


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 10, 2008)

Domon said:
			
		

> i don't think so... being a friend should



A rule with that much grey space in one of the base rules will be impossible to play constructively in a convention setting.  Not everyone in the world is lucky enough to only play the game with only friendly non-rules lawyers.


----------



## hong (Mar 10, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> A rule with that much grey space in one of the base rules will be impossible to play constructively in a convention setting.  Not everyone in the world is lucky enough to only play the game with only friendly non-rules lawyers.




Convention games can have their own guidelines, just like Living Greyhawk has/had a bunch of extra rules on top of those in the PHB. Besides, playing in a con is like PUGing; you goes in, you takes your chances.

Actually, IIRC Mearls said that the DMG won't require people to use their skill system, and if you do, there's many ways in which you can use it. Which suggests there won't be any one mandated way of doing things.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 10, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Which suggests there won't be any one mandated way of doing things.



Very cool.  Do you remember if that was an article, or a podcast?


----------



## pgmason (Mar 11, 2008)

I really rather like what I've heard about this resolution system. It's nice and rules light, and its fast.  Nothing slows down a chase scene like counting squares on a grid. I guess it comes down to what I see as the point of a game - for a group of people to collectively have fun telling a story.  For me, it doesn't matter whether the alley has a secret door or not (unless I want them to get caught for plot reasons, or unless I want the NPC thieves guild to make contact with them, in which case the doors open, and someone's beckoning them in).  The alley only exists when the players are looking at it.  It's sole purpose is to be the alley which the players run down.  As a GM, I don't want to have to write encyclopedic notes about everything my player might come across.  I don't especially want to have to prepare anything at all.  I want to play the game with them.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Mar 11, 2008)

I played out a skill-based diplomacy challenge this weekend and it went great.  I had written out a bunch of examples, but I didn't need any. The PCs had to convince a dwarven thane to send troops to their cause (as I mentioned earlier in the thread) and they figured out ways to use their skills to try to convince him. I gave a maybe two minute explanation of how it worked and it played out intuitively in game with lots of role playing and back and forth, with results/reactions being based on the die rolls.

The first person used a Nature check to impress the thane with his knowledge of hobgoblins and their militaristic ways, the second used bluff to convince the thane that the dwarves were in peril from the hobgoblins, there was a failed History check to try and remind the king of the old dwarf/human alliance, and then an Insight check to remind the thane about how his people were warriors with no war. With four successes ans one failure, the thane was convinced enough to send an emissary.

I was kind of worried, but it worked very well.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 12, 2008)

I suspect, especially once 4E is released and we all know the mechanics of the system, we will hear plenty of stories like this one.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 12, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> *Majoru Oakheart -*
> 
> Since you were one of the few to run this encounter, do you have any other inside information for us?  What some of the upfront advice may have been?  Were there any predetermined DCs?  What did the write up say about the three avenues to complete the goal (Marketplace, Busy Street, etc.)?  How much was guided by the adventure, and how much by the players themselves?



I wish I could provide more.  I can't though.  Maybe later.


----------



## jaer (Mar 12, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> I don't want "I use diplomacy with an easy roll, tell me how I get past the guards."




Nor do I, and this was one of my concerns.



> and I don't want "I diplomacize the captain of the guards with a bribe so that he escorts me out of the city and gives me his horse."




This I can handle with a "how much are you offering" and setting the DC appropriately high.  My disconnect with this approach is, what is the result of failure?  If the PC wants to do this, and scores a really high roll, but not quite enough to make it, what is the baseline result?  Utter failure and the guard clubs yous ("it was going so well until you said you wanted his horse, too!") or particial success ("there is no way the guard is giving you his horse, but he will help you get out og the city").



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> In our specific game, we did not choose easy, medium or hard. We did not know the difference. We described what our characters wanted to do and consulted with the DM if we could. HE DECIDED whether the action was appropriate and advanced us towards the goal. HE DECIDED whether the specific skill use was appropriate or not. And finally HE DECIDED what the difficulty of the action would be based on what the action was, not the other way around.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> I don't really know where this notion, that the players somehow "magically" shaped the environment to something that it was not, comes from. The descriptions the players used were appropriate for the description of the setting they were given. This whole interaction occured without a map. It was all based on DM description.




I believe this notion is coming from people reporting having a completely different experience than you did, and having DMs ask them if they were rolling Easy, Medium, or Hard DCs.  I could be mistaken on that, but easlier posts sounded like the players were declaring that, not the DM.

If the players are saying "I want to do X" and I, as the DM, decide the difficulty of the DC, they make the roll, and I describe the out come, that is fine with me.  That is a skill system I would use out of the box without isssue (and it's pretty much what goes on now...they say what they want to do, and I judge how hard it is and set a DC).

A "I want to make an easy diplomacy check...what happens?" approach is definitely a lot more than I want to deal with because I need to come up with the scenerio that creates the easy DC, describe what the PC is doing, and the end results of the failed or successful attempt.  That's more than I want to deal with on every skill check!

But from your playtest experience, D'karr, it sounds like the game doesn't assume that sort of skill usage, thank goodness.  It could very well list out several ways to use skills and all the DMs at DnDXP simply picked the method that they thought they would be able to handle best, hence the disconnect between players' experiences.


----------



## Domon (Mar 12, 2008)

> A rule with that much grey space in one of the base rules will be impossible to play constructively in a convention setting. Not everyone in the world is lucky enough to only play the game with only friendly non-rules lawyers.




i don't think ANY role has EVER helped me defend myself from bad convention players. usually, if they don't like a rule, they play it bad running the game for everyone, or start complaining.

they kind of people i like to play with, even at conventions, won't need any protection rules. sules should provoke play, non protect it...


----------



## Seule (Mar 12, 2008)

Well, we've seen people here saying that they would use the skill challenges in various ways, and indeed they seem to have been run a couple different ways at DDXP. I can't imagine that the 4e designers didn't explore this design space reasonably well, putting various options into the rulebooks. 
I for one am quite curious to see what they thought of that we haven't, and what twists they suggest.

  --Penn


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Mar 13, 2008)

Domon said:
			
		

> i don't think ANY role has EVER helped me defend myself from bad convention players. usually, if they don't like a rule, they play it bad running the game for everyone, or start complaining.
> 
> they kind of people i like to play with, even at conventions, won't need any protection rules. sules should provoke play, non protect it...




well met


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2008)

What i heard about the skill checks is quite nice. I like the structuring of those checks. In 3d edition i always told my players to be creative, which means: tell me what you try and make a suggestion which skill is appropriate. Then i can make offers as a DM what can actually be managed:

P: I try to get on the roof.
DM: there are different roofs here. You can climb wall, or you can break in a house, jump on sth etc.
P: I try to climb.
DM: you see a ladder on wall which is easy to climb, but you have to go a bit back, or you can try to climb up that high house in front of you.
P: I try the house in front of me, but i will do it carefully.
DM: (secretly thinks that his was the medium challenge): make your climb roll.
P: 16
DM: success (secretly notes a success)

If the player tried the hard way: I try to get up the house in front of me very fast, he could fail more easily, but on a success you could let him do an acrobtics check to increase his speed.

If the player decides to use the ladder, on a success he loses some time to get to the ladder, but makes up for it, because it is much faster to climb the ladder. On a failed check, he only loses time.

So actually that skill system seems great.
The number of successes needed to escape should usually not been told to the players. This would take away lot of the tension.
And this will be the way I use it.

Edit: and this is how i used it in my best 3.x games... the trick is: don´t let your players know tht they altered reality. (who cares if the robbers have their base in the nearest wood or in the sewers...)


----------



## D'karr (Mar 16, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> What i heard about the skill checks is quite nice. I like the structuring of those checks. In 3d edition i always told my players to be creative, which means: tell me what you try and make a suggestion which skill is appropriate. Then i can make offers as a DM what can actually be managed:
> 
> P: I try to get on the roof.
> DM: there are different roofs here. You can climb wall, or you can break in a house, jump on sth etc.
> ...




From what you've described there, you will surely enjoy the skill challenges system.  And yes, keeping the number of successes needed a secret, is probably the best way to keep the players on their toes and increase the suspense.


----------



## pemerton (Mar 16, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> A "I want to make an easy diplomacy check...what happens?" approach is definitely a lot more than I want to deal with because I need to come up with the scenerio that creates the easy DC, describe what the PC is doing, and the end results of the failed or successful attempt.  That's more than I want to deal with on every skill check!



Is there a reason why one cannot have the player do that work?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 16, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> From what you've described there, you will surely enjoy the skill challenges system.  And yes, keeping the number of successes needed a secret, is probably the best way to keep the players on their toes and increase the suspense.



 you summed that up quite well 

although i don´t think it is a big change for me, since i´ve learned to allow players to "change the world" the hard way...

and just as a reminder: the change from 3.5 is not very big.

The skill system in 3.5 worked very well when you reminded everybody that maxing out skills leads only to power creep

beating following DCs with "take ten" is:

DC 0-5: very easy, (climbing a ladder)
DC 10: nothing special, (climbing a slope)
DC 15: proficiency, (climbing up a wall with windows as holds)
DC 20: expertise, (climbing a rough wall)
DC 25: mastery,
DC 30: grandmastery

the standard procedure for opening locks, finding and disarming traps should be "take 20". (disarming a trap in 6 seconds... 2 mins sounds better to me)

with that in mind, usually everybody can participate in many different tasks... and don´t forget the DM´s friend (+2/-2 modifiers)

Its just, that you have to constantly watch over your players skills and you needed to constantly ensure them that using non maxed skills and taking 10 and taking 20 is worthwhile. So yes, 4e skill system seems to make my life much easier...


----------



## habaal (Mar 17, 2008)

wow. Just got to this thread now. First impressions:
seems pretty easy to write chase scenes. The whole "we succeeded six checks! we won!" won't be an issue 'cos the PC's dont know how many successes they need or how many losses thay got till thay're cought/dead.... maybe the pursuer is a dragon? in that case the DM may decide that three failiurs is enough to make the pc's stand and fight a couple of rounds before attempting to escape again. even then you'll need a pretty difficult skill checks to convince a townsfolk to hide you. It'd be easy to combine attacks against the PC's (acid breathing and such) and vise versa (the paladin might want to wait for the wyrm behind the corner just to buy som time, even by risk of death) just to add action. What i'm claiming is that the chase system MAKES the players take some blessed control over the nerrative, not changing the world but rether describing they're characters' choices and place in the world the DM creates.
Don't know about you, but as a player, I'd love to have those oppertunities to make my PC shine in the story the way I want him to.

As a DM i find it pretty easy to comgine successes storywise ("Managed a hard climb check? You now have an opportunity to drop a stone Gargoyle on the wyrm to slow it down, or if you want to warn another PC that his running towards a dead end, you may." I'd let the player come up with something himself if he wants.)


----------



## william_nova (Mar 17, 2008)

Belphanior said:
			
		

> Yes, Derren seems to run his game with an ironclad focus on realism. The city has a map. That street is a dead end. Running into it will get you nowhere.
> [...]
> The city has no detailed map. I'm not going to work out every street and alley, the entire sewer network, the exact height of every wall and roof. They don't do this in books or movies either.




I find parallels here with the Cinematic Unisystem, used in the Buffy and Angel RPGs.  Wonderful systems that allow player interaction with the story in novel ways via semi narrativist mechanics.  

I see this parallel in the healing surge mechanic, where hit points are more abstracted.  In 4e D&D, as in a cinematic game, you can simply say "I think I'm Ok," or "It looked worse than it was" or any other explanation as to why Xander Harris or your Elf could get knocked 30 feet and thru a wall by a demon and be simply dazed one scene, and mortally wounded in another.  How?  Because it was interesting for the story!  And for the simulationists out there, how many people get shot in the shoulder and die of shock, while others can take 5 bullets to the chest and survive?  It happens all the time.  Hate to tell you, but life really can be that random sometimes.  So can your game.

Absolute old school insistence on Simulationist rules is not fun.  It's frustrating.  How many folks here ran 1e D&D and had a character die every other session?  If you had a "realistic" DM, this happened all the time.  Face it, 2e lessened the realism, as did 3e.  In each iteration of the rules, the standards of Simulationism have been relaxed.  I think that in 4e there's been a larger than normal leap, which is what seems to be upsetting people.  It's the amount of change so suddenly.

Another parallel area where you can see this greater player control in the new skill resolution.  PCs have more control over what happens, in this new world where 'what's behind the door' depends on how you rolled.  To compare, in a cinematic unisystem game, you can spend points to nudge the plot in certain directions, and having played that extensively, I can say, it's a blast.  

Once you get beyond the min/max numbers game, and the concept of what's "real," and of winning vs losing, you can feel free to nudge rolls (or scenes) you failed to succeed using a more narrativist influenced system.  You can also nudge rolls (or scenes) to *fail* if you so wish.  Why would you want to fail a roll (or a scene)?  If it makes for a more interesting story, you absolutely should.

To sum up, the fascinating thing I see about 4e is on one hand you have the obvious borrowing from the minis game and the warlord class for example to accommodate those of us who like math and complexity, while at the same time making the rules set friendly enough that I, an unapologetic 3e hater, can feel good about it.  At that same time, while some folks are wondering if their RPG has turned into Warhammer, we have some new, more narrativist style rules, and an obvious focus on setting and roleplay.  I find this to be a very exciting blend of styles, personally.  One I can't wait to play.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2008)

william_nova said:
			
		

> [...]
> 
> To sum up, the fascinating thing I see about 4e is on one hand you have the obvious borrowing from the minis game and the warlord class for example to accommodate those of us who like math and complexity, while at the same time making the rules set friendly enough that I, an unapologetic 3e hater, can feel good about it. At that same time, while some folks are wondering if their RPG has turned into Warhammer, we have some new, more narrativist style rules, and an obvious focus on setting and roleplay. I find this to be a very exciting blend of styles, personally. One I can't wait to play.






I can see the concerns of certain people, that giving narrative control to players is death to their campaigns... but everytime i played or DMed a game where EVERYTHING was completely drawn out, noone had a good time. The best storys evolve in a DIALOGUE between DM and players. It is possible with 3rd edition to play that way, but having a ruleset with that in mind is a great thing.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Mar 17, 2008)

I can only speak to my own experience in using the system in my own 3.5-based game, but it's working splendidly. The PC tells me what they want to do, I tell them the skill to roll, they pick easy/medium/hard and roll it. If what they're trying to do is naturally Hard, then I just tell them that easy or medium aren't options, but the vast majority of times so far I've been able to easily work in their choice of difficulty.

Easy checks simply mean they're playing it safe and going for the main chance in a situation. Failing a check like that means that not only do they fail to advance their cause, some sort of additional gritty complication arises. More difficult checks mean they're taking bigger, more heroic risks, and the game rewards such cinematic efforts by limiting failure consequences to simple lack of progress and giving hard checks a chance for additional goodness. Want a grittier campaign feel? Just add ascending bad side-effects for failing medium and hard checks.

So far the system really is working well for my game.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 17, 2008)

the problem in 3.5 are maxed out skills vs untrained skills... it usually makes setting a "hard" DC difficult (at higher levels there is a too high difference).


----------



## Ximenes088 (Mar 17, 2008)

I'd agree that it's less useful in 3.5 at higher levels, where there's such a big spread between untrained and specialized skills. But since 4e won't have that spread and since my PCs are still low-level, I'm not having any problems with it.


----------



## heirodule (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm going to try out this system in my Xen'drik game for crossing a desert.

It would seem to me that sometimes if you want the challenge to BE a challenge, you have to make the "easy" check base higher.

We're a 10th level party. They would ALL pass easy checks no problem and it would be kinda boring. 

but so is tracking every day of travel and rolling 10 fortitude saves.

I also wonder how 3.5 magic will factor into this. "well we all have endure elements up, we create food and water every day" takes away much of the rationale for making the desert crossing a skill challenge at all. There's always getting lost, which is already a built-in Xen'drik function, so that's good. Perhaps 4e will take away more than just easy travel magic.

I'm imagining the players using skills thusly

Decipher Script on ancient runes on a rock that warn us of the dangers of the desert
Handle Animal my camel to push it through the night faster
Heal to treat some of the heat stroke and sunburn suffered
Know (nature) to find fresh water
Know (geography) to plot a better route
Ride to get the animals further along
Spot to find an oasis a long way off
Survival to protect against the hazards of the desert.
Fortitude to shrug off the heat


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.
> 
> It's logical justification for such things that make PCs being able to pick easy, medium, or hard difficult for me to grasp as a concept and to play out and describe as a DM.




First of Jaer I like you, you are getting your point across in a style much more to my liking than some other posters in this thread. As is the case with many others we disagree on how nailed down and firmed up the city needs to be. And thats okay, as an example of this were I running a chase scene 1) If the streetwise roll would make a difference in the alley they chose I would always take the roll into consideration first 2) my world even if all mapped out isn't as static as perhaps yours is. Hmm rolled and succeeded on a medium or hard streetwise check to duck down this deadend to get away. The map says it is a dead end but he overheard street urchins talking about some loose stones/bricks/boards that they put in recently, or there is a clothesline overhead or some thrown out clothes he can use a disguise check to try to get past the guards.

As to the part I quoted Maybe the easy guard isn't corrupt, could be the easy guard is well easy and I have an 18 charisma, or the barmaid I saw him with last night did, she wasn't wearing a wedding band and he is, or I overheard him talking about needing money for xxx and I can help out, or hey that dancing girl in the seedy part of town looks ALOT like him bet he doesn't know that or if he does he doesn't want it getting out.


----------



## Zimri (Mar 17, 2008)

Nytmare said:
			
		

> Not every player is going to be a disruptive schmuck who thinks it's their rules-given right to take advantage of a system like this, but the design should protect you from them anyway.
> 
> Otherwise you end up wasting way too much time saying "no" to Holy Avengers.
> 
> You do realize that's exactly what I was saying my interpretation was, right?




Disruptive schmucks exist in every iteration of the game. If they are more disruptive than anyones particular table enjoys the dm and/or host has the same rule available as in every other iteration of the game "you are no longer welcome" There is no need to say NO it doesn't work like that -- at this table-- now quit it more than a few times.


----------



## LEHaskell (Mar 17, 2008)

jaer said:
			
		

> The diplomacy a little more difficult to understand how the PC picks that.  One suggestion was that an easy DC means corrupt guards.  My reaction to that was, what if two people pick it and succeed, and a third PC tried is as well...that implies that in this chase we have three corrupt guards?  In certain cities, that may be fine.  Others, however, that makes little sense.




One suggestion I would make for such a situation: if having three corrupt guards would be unlikely, then the DC should increase for each successive check.  This might have the added benefit of discouraging "Me too!" checks from the players, giving them a reason to find their own solutions or to contribute their own skills to if they want to work together.

A question that occurred to me for those that ran or played the Escape from Sembia adventure.  What were the consequences of FAILING the entire skill challenge?  Because the party could split up, it seems narratively odd if the party's failure resulted in everyone being captured -- even the guy who made no failures.  For example, the guy hiding in the shadows succeeds handily, but the guy running over the rooftops fails every attempt, causing the party to fail.  Presumably, the result, success or failure, should impact the entire party in the same way, reuniting them.  So, was everyone captured? Or was there some other penalty for failure?


----------



## habaal (Mar 17, 2008)

I just returned from my 3.5 session. After reading the chase rules last night, I've decided to apply them. First of all, four of my players loved it, and where coming up with excellent uses for the skills. The other two players had a much harder time coming up with good ideas, and I found myself more than once suggesting solutions or adjusting some far fetched ideas thay had. All in all, I think their ideas were mostly rational, and I had a blast describing the action.
At the end I asked one player, who had his first session in 1.5 years, how was it; he replied it was cool but he'd rather have more straight-forward fights most of the time.

P.S- the players were chasing a dragon, and not vise versa. It worked perfectly and I made it ruin half the city before they cought it. Next session either them or the Wyrm will bite the dust


----------



## Wolv0rine (Mar 17, 2008)

heirodule said:
			
		

> Handle Animal my camel to push it through the night faster




...

I don't believe you didn't realize what you typed, man. 

(On-Topic -- this may actually be the *first* thing about 4E that I like.  By the gods, it's about friggin' time.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> the problem in 3.5 are maxed out skills vs untrained skills... it usually makes setting a "hard" DC difficult (at higher levels there is a too high difference).



Especially since it's also hard to determine what "specialised" actually is:
Max Ranks
Max Ranks + extremely good ability score 
Max Ranks + Skill Focus
Max Ranks + SKill Enhancement Item +5 or higher?
Max Ranks + every synergy bonus you can get?
A combination of the above?

Compare a Fighter that is "specialised" on Intimidate (Max Ranks, Skill Focus (Intimidate), but Charisma 10) with a Rogue "specialised" on Intimidate (Max Ranks, Skill Focus (Intimidate), Bluff, Charisma 12 Circlet of Persuasion, Cloak of Charisma +2, Mogel-Item of Intimidate +5)

Even knowing the level doesn't help you.


----------



## heirodule (Mar 18, 2008)

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I don't believe you didn't realize what you typed, man.




bah!

Honi soit qui mal y pense!


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 19, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Especially since it's also hard to determine what "specialised" actually is:
> Max Ranks
> Max Ranks + extremely good ability score
> Max Ranks + Skill Focus
> ...



 In my opinion, specialized is defined by the bonus you have:

In my opinion 5 ranks is when you start becoming an expert in a skill, thus you get synergise bonuses out of it.

So achieving a total bonus of 5 is the first level of specialization. (take 10 gives 15 which is already a moderate task (reducing damage when jumping from a roof etc) Take 20 already beats 25 which is not too shabby)


A real NPC specialist looks like that:

expert 2
5 ranks in his specialized skill
5 ranks in at least one synergizing skill (if there is one)
skill fokus specialized skill
(if human maybe one of those +2/+2 feats)
14 in relevant attribute

so he has a bonus of at least +10 (and sometimes up to +16)

Hence, the 2nd level of specialization is having a total bonus of +10 (which is take 10 to reach 20, take 20 to reach 30)

Everything beyond that is real specialization, and you should not have more than 2 or 3 skills maxed (excluding necessary skills like spellcraft, concentration or perform)

Edit: mogel item of *** +5 shoud not be in 4e at all. I hope they will only make you trained in one skill or sets your skill to a certain score, so that specialized characters don´t need them to compete with others who are specialized. Those 3.x magic items only lead to an arm´s race and don´t add anything to the game...


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 19, 2008)

Zimri said:
			
		

> If they are more disruptive than anyones particular table enjoys the dm and/or host has the same rule available as in every other iteration of the game "you are no longer welcome"



I don't see the benefit of having to say "no" more than once when the rule can be written so that an abusive player didn't see every skill check as a Limited Wish.


----------



## Dacileva (Mar 19, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well, if you want to throw in mid-level magic items onto a 2nd level character, I'm sure I can pump the 4e Diplomacy bonus higher, too... But to be pedantic your example has some mistakes and is missing some bonuses.  5 ranks max, +4 cha, +4 bluff/SM synergy, +2 half-elf, +3 skill focus = +18



+20, actually.  +6 synergy, from Bluff/Sense Motive/Knowledge (nobility & royalty)

One more level, and it becomes +23 (1 more rank, Negotiator feat), completely core, with no magic items, and it just goes up from there.  There's a post on r.g.f.d. from a few years ago that details how to get a +153 Diplomacy at level 20 (+118 permanent, +122 up to 18 times daily, and +153 once daily, with an extra +2 against good creatures), with references and cites to all books used (WotC books only).

As for the rest of this thread, I've found the discussion extremely interesting, folks!  Threads like this one are the only thing keeping me from abandoning online discussion of 4e completely.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Mar 19, 2008)

heirodule said:
			
		

> It would seem to me that sometimes if you want the challenge to BE a challenge, you have to make the "easy" check base higher.
> 
> We're a 10th level party. They would ALL pass easy checks no problem and it would be kinda boring.



I think that the skill challenge system is probably designed to scale as a party goes up in level. In 4E, all skills will increase at 1/2 per level, so I am willing to bet that DCs for a skill challenge will scale appropriately. Based on that logic, if the DC for an Easy Level 1 Challenge is 10, then an Easy Level 10 Challenge would be DC 15, Level 20 would be DC 20, and Level 30 would be DC 25. The level of the challenge, rather than being based on the party level, is based on an absolute difficulty scale. Thus, crossing a particular desert may be a level 5 challenge, but a supernatural lava field may be a level 15 challenge. Crossing the desert would be trivial for a party who could cross the lava field, simply because their basic abilities have grown.

That was all just a guess, but I think it is a system that would work well.


----------



## hbarsquared (Mar 20, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> The level of the challenge, rather than being based on the party level, is based on an absolute difficulty scale. Thus, crossing a particular desert may be a level 5 challenge, but a supernatural lava field may be a level 15 challenge. Crossing the desert would be trivial for a party who could cross the lava field, simply because their basic abilities have grown.
> 
> That was all just a guess, but I think it is a system that would work well.




This is exactly what I predict, as well.

Plus, this fits into the "modular" nature of 4E encounter design.  I can envision an "Elite 10th Level Skill Challenge" used in conjunction with three 10th Level monsters for a Level 10 Encounter.  Or somesuch.  Just like traps and hazards have been integrated into the encounter system, I imagine skill challenges might be, as well.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 10, 2008)

For those running the demos, now, any new information to add regarding the specifics of Skill Encounters?


----------

