# Rodney Thompson: Non-Combat Encounters



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Rodney's Blog 

This has been the best tidbit yet.

I hope this helps alleviate the "4E is a wargame" concern that many here have.

If this kind of information makes the 4E DMG we will be able to claim that 4E has a strong hand in encouraging roleplaying. The mechanics were always there (Rodney's article will definately influence my remaining 3.5 games), but this type of thinking was never spelled out in the DMG. Even as a long-time (25 years) DM I had not thought of examples such as a History check to find an escape route.

Many are probably shaking their heads and calling me a bad DM at this point, but hey, the previous editions never encouraged this type of thinking tied to the actual rules. The article is like an epiphany for me at least.


----------



## Kordeth (Mar 17, 2008)

Unless Rodney got married to Chris Thomasson and I didn't get invited to the wedding, that's Rodney *Thompson's* blog. 

Cool post, though.


----------



## Rex Blunder (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, Chris didn't want his last name anymore. Maybe it was sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 17, 2008)

They have made a lot of promises regarding both skills and non-combat encounters. But will they give us more then a glorified version of "wing it"...we don't know.

Hmm, maybe they should do a preview of some of this stuff.


----------



## Derren (Mar 17, 2008)

TerraDave said:
			
		

> They have made a lot of promises regarding both skills and non-combat encounters. But will they give us more then a glorified version of "wing it"...we don't know.
> 
> Hmm, maybe they should do a preview of some of this stuff.




I agree. There has been so much talk about how awesome 4E will be that I am actually turned off by all this promises. They should show some mechanics instead of always repeating the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Unless Rodney got married to Chris Thomasson and I didn't get invited to the wedding, that's Rodney *Thompson's* blog.
> 
> Cool post, though.




I was close! There are too many Thom- designers. I'm sure someone will come along and point this out as yet another flaw of 4E.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Well, not that Rodney's blog is a preview, per se, the mechanics were previewed at DDXP. The History check to escape the guards is a great example. I don't consider this to be a "just wing it" representation either. Good advice for a DM is that they cannot possibly think of every possible solution to a challenge. Many games I have played and many I have run have sufferd from the DM knowing the "right" solution to the problem. It leads to railroading and giving the players the impression that their choice make no difference and that they are really only in the game to solve the DMs latest puzzle.

The article had solid advice and I could glean the rules just from his short description:
1) The DM presents the party with the Non-Combat Challege. (ex. escape from the town guards.)
2) The DM sets DCs with success levels. For example a DC 5 check may result in a victory that leads to a new problem, while a DC 20 check may not only solve the current problem but also provide an added benefit to others or the PC. (He mentions level of success.)
3) The player tells the DM his plan to solve the problem and the skill(s) he would like to use to accomplish said goal.
4) The DM determines if the combined plan and skill make sense together.
5) At the DMs approval, make your skill check.
6) DM determines the outcome based on level of success.

This would make for good rules structure, realizing that the DM always has to "wing it" when determining the outcome of an untold number of ideas that different players may devise.

Hopefully good guidelines for skills and the implementation of the above is fleshed out in the PHB and DMG. This is key. The above mechanics have been available since the DSG and WSG were released for 1E but none of the designers took the time to give the DM guidelines on how to use the player's ideas to guide the outcome in hand with the rules system. Previous editions left the DM to "wing" the system entirely.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 17, 2008)

If there is anything I don't like on 4E, it's definitely that there are to many "Thom-" designers. I mean, I can't really be bothered to read everything in the blog on the off-chance I find out the name.

I would prefer if each designer name would start with at least a 3-letter unique combination. Maybe alphabetically ordered. 

I mean, Alpher, Bethe and Gamow could do it, why not the WotC design team?


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2008)

It's a good article, but rmy reaction was this was nothing new.  I and the GMs that I have played with have been doing things  like this with skills for a long time. There was even a section in the DMs guide talking about alternative skill uses and, of course, expanded skill uses in various products.  It might also be why I have seen the issue of players over focusing on a few select skills to keep  them maxed and ignoring other skills to be a player or group issue and not a game issue.  If the DM makes skills relevant, players will learn that focusing on keeping a few skills maxed rather  than diversifying is not always a good thing.


----------



## Goobermunch (Mar 17, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> It's a good article, but rmy reaction was this was nothing new.  I and the GMs that I have played with have been doing things  like this with skills for a long time. There was even a section in the DMs guide talking about alternative skill uses and, of course, expanded skill uses in various products.  It might also be why I have seen the issue of players over focusing on a few select skills to keep  them maxed and ignoring other skills to be a player or group issue and not a game issue.  If the DM makes skills relevant, players will learn that focusing on keeping a few skills maxed rather  than diversifying is not always a good thing.



 Except that in 4e, _all_ your skills go up as you level.  So even if you've only focused in 4 skills, you'll still have a non-sucky chance of pulling things off with your untrained skills (though maybe not as great as with your trained skills).  As a result, the PCs are automatically diversified (to a limited extent).  So long as the DMG has rules for setting reasonable DCs by level, your PC should be good at a lot of things.

From the math side, I understand that skill training gives a PC a +5 to a skill.  That means that a remarkably talented PC without training will be as good as an average PC with training (assuming stat mod for 20 = +5; a 20 dex is as good as training in a dex based skill vs. an average (read bonus 0) PC with training).  Since both characters will improve at a rate of 1/2, that means that an untrained PC will still have a decent chance of marginal success.

--G


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2008)

Yes, they all automatically go up. That is not a good thing, imo (and is actually one of the deal breakers for me).  Anyway, I was pointing out that the idea of doing  creative things could be done in 3.5.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> Anyway, I was pointing out that the idea of doing  creative things could be done in 3.5.




They always could be done, the problem is that DMs have never really been given any solid advice or structure for doing so. They were left to wing it. Many people probably have been doing just what was suggested in Rodney's blog. And if you played in such a group you may have picked up those skills when you started to DM. But all of us have different talents and even though I haven't had more than a couple people complain that I was an enjoyable DM over the course of 25 years (the majority of my players have described me as a good DM), I had not thought about encouraging a framework of the player setting 'Plan A' to 'Skill X' and determining the outcome based on their skill check.

Does this make me substandard to you? Not in and of itself to be sure. There are many other factors involved that could make me a better or worse DM than you.

But ideas like this need to be presented and shared to allow all DMs or varying skill and talents to take advantage of what is a great idea. The additional uses of skills sections were too restrictive. They implied that while the designers were able to discover new rules for a skill, that such rules had to be strictly codified and pre-set. The new uses still tied to what normally should be able to be accomplished with the skill. Rodney's article gave good examples of how a skill could be used to accomplish something you wouldn't normally associate the skill with.


----------



## Storminator (Mar 17, 2008)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> From the math side, I understand that skill training gives a PC a +5 to a skill.  That means that a remarkably talented PC without training will be as good as an average PC with training (assuming stat mod for 20 = +5; a 20 dex is as good as training in a dex based skill vs. an average (read bonus 0) PC with training).  Since both characters will improve at a rate of 1/2, that means that an untrained PC will still have a decent chance of marginal success.
> 
> --G




Instead of the stat trade, I think of it as a Heroic, trained PC is as good as a Paragon untrained PC. Training is as good as 10 levels.

PS


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Does this make me substandard to you? Not in and of itself to be sure. There are many other factors involved that could make me a better or worse DM than you.




No it doesn't and I never meant to imply that it did.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 17, 2008)

I think I'm going to hate the new skill system.

I really don't like the assertion that being able to use any arbitrary skill to get out of a bad situtation is an example of the game mechanics facilitating good roleplaying.

I especially don't like the idea of the History skill conveying knowledge of a sewer grate.   Why is it that this is the result of knowing history?  Isn't it far  more likely that use of the History skill would help the PC determine that in fact, there wasn't a convenient sewer grate all ready to jump into?

Because of the trained mechanic, it looks to me like characters are going to have a bunch of skills at moderate levels, and a couple of good skills.  Because of the idea that PCs get to determine for themselves which skills get them out of bad situations, I'm going to see the wizard demanding to use his History skill for every conceivable dilemna, and the rogue using his Sneak skill every time.   I can just picture the arguments that will ensue if I resist this, given that the PHB will probably have specific verbiage encouraging it.

Which means that each PC only has one skill that matters:  their best one. 

Ken


----------



## Doug McCrae (Mar 17, 2008)

Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> No it doesn't and I never meant to imply that it did.




I didn't mean that I got that I got that impression from you either.

I was trying to point out that all DMs could benefit from the information in Rodney's blog being fleshed out in the DMG, even good experienced DMs. Even if the potential was always there and some people figured it out for themselves doesn't mean its not valid for the designers to tout this as a virtue of 4E. And I still contend that use of skills in this manner was not properly promoted in previous edition, imo.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to hate the new skill system.
> 
> I really don't like the assertion that being able to use any arbitrary skill to get out of a bad situtation is an example of the game mechanics facilitating good roleplaying.
> 
> ...




I agree, I wouldn't put a sewer there just because the player came up with the idea. However, in my  3.5 game, if there was  a sewer beneath the city, and it had played some historical role. I would allow the History check probably at an increased DC to know it where as a Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (streetwise) would reveal the knowledge at a lower DC or even succeed automatically( if the character was from the city).


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 17, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I can just picture the arguments that will ensue if I resist this, given that the PHB will probably have specific verbiage encouraging it.



Since you're inventing a passage in the PHB, I'm going to invent one in the DMG which advises how to handle such a situation.


----------



## Goobermunch (Mar 17, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think I'm going to hate the new skill system.




I'm sure you will.  That's an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I believe that it's still the DM's job to look at the proposed skill use and determine whether the suggested resolution has anything to do with the challenge at hand.  I believe that the DM can still adjust the DC to reflect the fact that my sneak skill will be more useful for crossing that cavern full of slumbering orcs than your insight skill.  But, if you are able to articulate a compelling or interesting way in which your insight skill might permit you to avoid alerting the orcs, why shouldn't you be able to do that?

Moreover, why should it be solely the DM's job to anticipate every possible resolution to an encounter and set DCs accordingly?  If that's the case, then a narrow-minded DM will end up railroading PCs because the only successful path is the one the DM preconceived.

--G


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.




I can never tell whether you're being serious or not...


----------



## Toryx (Mar 17, 2008)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> Yay! There's a chase mechanic. Now all we need are rules for running up a big monster's back.




I'm sure that's there. You just roll your History skill to recall that the famous Ranger Laslego once utilized his Acrobatic skill combined with his Atheletics skill and Nature skill to achieve the correct balance, speed, and understanding of the beast's spinal/ tail bone structure to scramble up on top and slay it from behind.

I'm inclined to agree that what Thompson described is nothing different from what creative DMs have been doing with 3.x skill rules. Even with the constant advancement of the skills, however, I don't really think that the Trained +5 bonus and increased limits on skills a class can be trained in are really going to add flexibility to the system. The simplification of the skill structure, based on what we've seen, seem to me only confining unless the DM and a group use their imaginations to resolve issues.

Maybe I'm wrong, but using a knowledge type skill to remember/ figure out a place to hide doesn't seem all that "skillful" to me.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 17, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Since you're inventing a passage in the PHB, I'm going to invent one in the DMG which advises how to handle such a situation.




A WoTC developer is  asserting in his blog that it's appropriate for the PC to determine which skill will get him out of a given situation (the History check to find the sewer grate).

I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that the PHB will incorporate this paradigm.  Why else would he write about it?

Ken


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 17, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I agree, I wouldn't put a sewer there just because the player came up with the idea.



This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.

Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> I was trying to point out that all DMs could benefit from the information in Rodney's blog being fleshed out in the DMG, even good experienced DMs. Even if the potential was always there and some people figured it out for themselves doesn't mean its not valid for the designers to tout this as a virtue of 4E. And I still contend that use of skills in this manner was not properly promoted in previous edition, imo.




Oh, pointing it out is a great thing, imo.  I just didn't think that the idea was something new and exclusive to 4e. But I do agree, it wasn't properly promoted in 3e as were not a few other things.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> I'm sure you will.  That's an example of a self-fulfilling prophecy.
> 
> I believe that it's still the DM's job to look at the proposed skill use and determine whether the suggested resolution has anything to do with the challenge at hand.  I believe that the DM can still adjust the DC to reflect the fact that my sneak skill will be more useful for crossing that cavern full of slumbering orcs than your insight skill.  But, if you are able to articulate a compelling or interesting way in which your insight skill might permit you to avoid alerting the orcs, why shouldn't you be able to do that?
> 
> ...




In addition, the sewer example could lead the PC into a whole new dilemma.   

Oh the possibilities...

Rodney's blog has given me new inspiration for ANY game I run.


----------



## mudbunny (Mar 17, 2008)

Just because a player succeeds in his/her history check, it doesn't mean that they found something like a sewer. If there is nothing in the area that a history check could provide as a help to escape/infiltrate/whatever, the successful history check reveals: "You are sure that there is nothing that you remember about escaping/infiltrating from this area."


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.
> 
> Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.




I agree with Wormwood and to add my own take:

I doubt the player even invented it in the DDXP adventure. I doubt they said "I use my History skill to find the sewers so I can escape."

It was probably a more generic, "With my History skill can I think of any old, forgotten tunnels used by past invaders or underground groups that I might be able to use to escape the guards?" The DM created the sewers. (Does that help DMs that want to keep all levels of minutiae to themselves when it comes to world-building?)

A good D&D literature example comes from the first Dragonlance Trilogy. The Qualinesti elves used their knowledge of history to remember an ancient path, the Sla-Mori, to gain secret access to the mines.

In 4E instead of only putting these kinds of resources at the hands of NPCs to point out a possible path, now the players have a more active role in forming the world and the story. This gives them a vested interested, which will keep them more engaged, which will keep them coming back for more.


----------



## Scrollreader (Mar 17, 2008)

This is, I think a big divide that 4e is sort of making clearer, (though to be sure, it already existed).  I haven't had a setting where I have every dead end, every sewer grate and apple cart mapped out since probably the second AD&D game that I ran.  If you want to swing on a tapestry, and you're someplace where there /should/ be a tapestry (ie, inside a traditional mdieval castle's dining hall, or whatever) and it's cool, then yeah, there's a tapestry within reach.  I just don't find any fun, for me or for my players, for spending an hour premapping the locations of tapestries in all my castles.  This isn't to say that a player can invent a secret door, with a high enough search check, but I appear to be somewhat in the middle of the road, as far as narrative control in the hands of the players.  Some of this is a necessity (there are six of them, creative people, and only one of me, and I don't have time to detail everything like when I was an obsessive compulsive new DM with no need to work for a living) and other parts of it are personal preference.  I can't say I'm anything but happy with most of the 4e stuff I've seen so far, but then I guess me and my gametable (online though it may be) are exactly their target audience.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

mudbunny said:
			
		

> Just because a player succeeds in his/her history check, it doesn't mean that they found something like a sewer. If there is nothing in the area that a history check could provide as a help to escape/infiltrate/whatever, the successful history check reveals: "You are sure that there is nothing that you remember about escaping/infiltrating from this area."




Except this is how things occur now. The article suggests that you encourage imaginative thinking by finding ways to make the character's skill checks useful and successful. If all your History checks ever reveal is that you are sure that nothing of the sort you are seeking exists, you will quickly become discouraged from using that skill. Just remember that success comes in different forms and that old phrase "be careful what you wish for." Success couple with new tangles based on a player's decisions make for a layered, dramatic game.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> A WoTC developer is  asserting in his blog that it's appropriate for the PC to determine which skill will get him out of a given situation (the History check to find the sewer grate).
> 
> I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that the PHB will incorporate this paradigm.  Why else would he write about it?
> 
> Ken



Actually, he said that the player thinks up the ideas, and then the DM decides if it makes sense.


> Basically, the players could use any skill they liked, *so long as they had a good explanation for it,* and the encounter gave rules on adjudicating those checks based on the likelihood that the attempt would be feasible.


----------



## FadedC (Mar 17, 2008)

Yeah you can decide for yourself if your city is likely to have a sewer grate in it. As you may know skill challenges actually have players go in order resolving skills and the goal is to get a certain number of successes before a certain number of failures. If no sewer grate exists then a failed check to find it could result in a waste of time (failure) while a succesful check could result in the player realizing it doesn't exist (no success but try again).

This type of challenge is built for things that are meant to play out sort of dramaticaly like chase scenes, negotiations and similar things rather then just rolling one check and succeeding or failing at the whole thing is a result. Multiple rolls make your skill bonuses more important because your less likely to just get lucky with a single good roll of a bad skill, or get hosed from a single bad roll of a good skill. No reason you couldn't have done this in 3e either, but personally I certainly never thought to.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 17, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> I agree, I wouldn't put a sewer there just because the player came up with the idea. However, in my  3.5 game, if there was  a sewer beneath the city, and it had played some historical role. I would allow the History check probably at an increased DC to know it where as a Knowledge (local) or Knowledge (streetwise) would reveal the knowledge at a lower DC or even succeed automatically( if the character was from the city).



I used to feel this way, but in recent years, I've come to find it a bit tedious across the board. I don't want to have every detail of every encounter area (or larger setting) mapped out, and it frustrates me to no end when an intricate webwork of potential encounter hooks or useable terrain gets tossed by the wayside simply because it doesn't match up congruently with the occasions on which PCs need to use it.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If this kind of information makes the 4E DMG we will be able to claim that 4E has a strong hand in encouraging roleplaying. The mechanics were always there (Rodney's article will definately influence my remaining 3.5 games), but this type of thinking was never spelled out in the DMG. Even as a long-time (25 years) DM I had not thought of examples such as a History check to find an escape route.




Huh. I've seen it done (and done it) in all sorts of games. "I've lived here all my life; do I know a route that maybe the guards don't?" "Sure, roll intelligence/knowledge/luck/whatever."

As I said on the blog, I was hoping for something like Dynasties&Demagogues or Spycraft; what we're actually getting isn't nearly as revolutionary/radical/deep as we were promised, unless there's big chunks of the system not yet revealed.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 17, 2008)

mudbunny said:
			
		

> Just because a player succeeds in his/her history check, it doesn't mean that they found something like a sewer.



Yes it does. The idea is this:



			
				Example Game Session said:
			
		

> PC: I use my History Skill to use superior knowledge of the local environs to escape the guards.
> DM: OK, roll.
> PC: 17!
> DM: Cool ... um, ... <invents a solution *just as effective as a 17 on a Hide Check*> ... There's a sewer grate on the corner of 12th and Sooth Street that will lead you straight to the river and out of town.




The PC can suggest using any Skill he wants, and if the DM accepts it then success on the roll means he succeeds in the game.  End of story.  How that success actually plays out is a hand-waivey and DM-fiat, but you can't take the success away from the PC.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> The PC can suggest using any Skill he wants, and *if the DM accepts it *then success on the roll means he succeeds in the game.  End of story.  How that success actually plays out is a hand-waivey and DM-fiat, but you can't take the success away from the PC.



Right, but the bolded part is key.


----------



## breschau (Mar 17, 2008)

I'm so glad that Gleemax owns my brain.

Considering how crap-tastic Gleemax is, would anyone consider posting the blog here?


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> unless there's big chunks of the system not yet revealed.




I suspect this to be the case. I'm not holding my breath that it will be any more dynamic, but they said it won't all boil down to a single die roll.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 17, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Yes it does. The idea is this:
> 
> Originally Posted by Example Game Session
> PC: I use my History Skill to use superior knowledge of the local environs to escape the guards.
> ...




I didn't read that as the intent at all. The solution does not have to be as effective as the Hide check. The Hide check could keep you hidden until the guards give up their search. The history check can lead you to the old sewers, which does get you away from the guards, only to discover that an otyugh has taken up residence there and is happy to see a food source other than rats entering its territory.

Or even better, one PC uses his History check to determine that a sewer grate exists. Another uses his Streetwise check to relate the tenuous relationship of street gangs in a neighborhood in the area. Another uses a Sneak check to get past some guards that are patrolling in the area. Then uses his Bluff check to try to incite a street skirmish between gang members in the area. The party uses the diversion to get past the guards and into the old sewer tunnels.


----------



## Propheous_D (Mar 17, 2008)

I highly doubt that the PHB or DMG will state "PC decides which check, and if GM agrees then the PC can win an encounter"

Couple things that people are just being silly about.

1. A single success is no longer the end all be all. 
2. A History check for sewers may reveal their presence, but it doesn't do ANYTHING else.

PC: Uh I use my streetwise to find a back alley. 
DM: Ok you find one off to the left.
PC: OK I dart down the back alley.
DM: THe gaurds follow you
PC: But I rolled man I rolled!!!!!
DM: And you found an alley.....What do you do now.


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Except this is how things occur now. The article suggests that you encourage imaginative thinking by finding ways to make the character's skill checks useful and successful. If all your History checks ever reveal is that you are sure that nothing of the sort you are seeking exists, you will quickly become discouraged from using that skill. Just remember that success comes in different forms and that old phrase "be careful what you wish for." Success couple with new tangles based on a player's decisions make for a layered, dramatic game.



Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one.  At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem.  If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it.  If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.

Anyway, rather than rehashing the narrative-simulation debate, of which there's already many many pages of discussion here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220605), I would like to say that this was possibly the first really good, interesting, and informative designer post that I've seen so far in the 4e runup.  This is what they should be publishing on DDI, not the "whee! mine carts are fun!" foolishness.  Thanks to Rodney for writing it, and I hope to read more in the same vein in the future.


----------



## Goobermunch (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one.  At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem.  If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it.  If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.
> 
> Anyway, rather than rehashing the narrative-simulation debate, of which there's already many many pages of discussion here (http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=220605), I would like to say that this was possibly the first really good, interesting, and informative designer post that I've seen so far in the 4e runup.  This is what they should be publishing on DDI, not the "whee! mine carts are fun!" foolishness.  Thanks to Rodney for writing it, and I hope to read more in the same vein in the future.




Except that the onus is on the player to devise a legitimate and believable reason for the skill to be useful under the circumstances, rather than on the DM to come up with a excuses for PCs to use their skills in the game.

--G


----------



## Spatula (Mar 17, 2008)

Goobermunch said:
			
		

> Except that the onus is on the player to devise a legitimate and believable reason for the skill to be useful under the circumstances, rather than on the DM to come up with a excuses for PCs to use their skills in the game.



I'm not sure how that contradicts anything that I said.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 17, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Since you're inventing a passage in the PHB, I'm going to invent one in the DMG which advises how to handle such a situation.




Isn't there such a thing as objective reality in a campaign though?

I am fairly creative as a DM in adjudicating rules, but in certain situations there are only a few or one way to proceed in a certain tactic. 

Letting the PCs willy nilly determine hard facts about the environment of the setting seems like an insult to players IMO. The challenge of D&D is that it is exciting to overcome challenges that the DM hasn't specifically tailored or hand-waved for that particular party or PC (that in addition to roleplaying their characters and enjoying a day with friends).  

Your argument strikes me as following along the lines that the PCs will never ever encounter a challenge that is outside of their strictly equated CR/EL level. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Except this is how things occur now. The article suggests that you encourage imaginative thinking by finding ways to make the character's skill checks useful and successful. If all your History checks ever reveal is that you are sure that nothing of the sort you are seeking exists, you will quickly become discouraged from using that skill. Just remember that success comes in different forms and that old phrase "be careful what you wish for." Success couple with new tangles based on a player's decisions make for a layered, dramatic game.




Why is telling a player 'no that skill is not relevant in this situation' a bad thing? Why would it discourage them in the long run from using it?

Your argument only holds up if the DM continually divests a specific skill from any use. In that one case I agree with you, but in my experience many skills are useful at different times but not all the time (unless you count something like Sense Motive with liberal/creative usages attached). 

One of the players (a fighter) in my campaign took a few ranks in a homebrew skill, Knowledge (Military) (a class skill for figthers among others). He uses it on occasion to EXTREMELY great effect (as in revealing key weaknesses in some of their foes, but often its not relevant to day-to-day dungeon delving. He asks if he can use it a lot, because he saw how effective it was when it was appropriate. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 17, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> The solution does not have to be as effective as the Hide check.



You can disagree, of course, but I think it does have to be as effective. The meta-steps are this:
1. DM states the issue/difficulty/challenge (aka, "You are being chased by guards.").
2. PC states the Skill he wants to use to solve this problem, and narratively describes  (perhaps generally, perhaps broadly) (a) how it would solve the challenge (this is "Application") and (b) what "Success" looks like.
3. DM decides if the Skill/Application can achieve the described Success. This is a binary decision - Yes/No.
4. If the answer to #3 is yes, the PC rolls. The table could look like:

0-4: Failure
5-9: Success, but with new complications
10-14: Basic success (Achieves result described by PC)
15+: Success, with added bonuses

Or whatever. Maybe those numbers change depending on the general skill of the foe you are trying to defeat ("Dragons in pursuit" is worse than "City guard in pursuit"), but Success is Success.

This of it like an attack roll: whether you're using a spell, a sword, a fist or your opponent's torn off limb, you just have to beat AC to hit.  Hit the number, achieve success.




			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Or even better, one PC uses his History check to determine that a sewer grate exists. Another uses his Streetwise check to relate the tenuous relationship of street gangs in a neighborhood in the area. Another uses a Sneak check to get past some guards that are patrolling in the area. Then uses his Bluff check to try to incite a street skirmish between gang members in the area. The party uses the diversion to get past the guards and into the old sewer tunnels.



This is a good example of "linked skill uses", which is key.  If you look at my meta-steps above, the DM might binarily decide that "No, the Skill/Applications described can not achieve the Success you are looking for; but it can get you half-way there if you can also make a Thievery check."

Or whatever.  Social Encounters are always going to be fuzzier than combat. You'll have to expect a certain amount of negotiation between the DM and the PCs about what the various Skills can be applied to and the types of Successes they can achieve.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 17, 2008)

I think you're conflating two vastly different things there, Cyronax. One (the CR/EL issue) is players metagaming, and the other (using is players assuming shared control of the narrative, using game rules designed for that purpose.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 17, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Isn't there such a thing as objective reality in a campaign though?



Once it has been explicitly stated, yes. Before that, no.  It's like Schroedinger's cat that way.  Any "fact" about the world which does not contradict any previously laid down "fact" could be true. 




			
				Cyronax said:
			
		

> Letting the PCs willy nilly determine hard facts about the environment of the setting seems like an insult to players IMO.



It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.


----------



## Surgoshan (Mar 17, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Isn't there such a thing as objective reality in a campaign though?
> 
> I am fairly creative as a DM in adjudicating rules, but in certain situations there are only a few or one way to proceed in a certain tactic.




But then the only way your players get to be creative is if you do a whole crapload of planning.  This takes some of the onus off the DM and puts it on the shoulders of the players.  It sounds like, by the method you're advocating, the players' choice is between risking your method or guaranteed failure at something you hadn't planned because you don't want them to do that.  This way you can sketch out a more freeform world and then have the players help you fill in the details as the game is played.

This is in keeping with one of the gleemax blogs that was linked somewhere here; the DM's job is being made a whole lot easier.

Edit: And now people have said it a whole lot better than I did, and before I said it.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 17, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Letting the PCs willy nilly determine hard facts about the environment of the setting seems like an insult to players IMO. The challenge of D&D is that it is exciting to overcome challenges that the DM hasn't specifically tailored or hand-waved for that particular party or PC.
> 
> Your argument strikes me as following along the lines that the PCs will never ever encounter a challenge that is outside of their strictly equated CR/EL level.



I've never run an encounter outside of the strictly equated CR/EL level.  This is because I want the PCs to win.

It really is a difference in playstyles again.  If your goal is to simulate a reality exactly, then you are going to have a point where the PCs do something to piss off someone who is WAY too powerful for them and they are all going to die.  They are going to accidentally wander into that dragon's lair they didn't know was there and end up lunch.

If your goal is a story based one then you simply don't write that sort of thing into the story.

For instance, if the point of your story is that the PCs will eventually find the Great Seal of Pelor and use it to unite the villages in the surrounding area and then defeat the evil dictator then it would be silly to have a CR 25 dragon guarding the entrance to the temple where the Seal is located.  The PCs will die and the story won't reach its ending.  Not unless you already have a plan for how the PCs will get around the dragon.

From a simulationist point of view it makes perfect sense to say "But the people who sealed the temple forever realized no one should ever wield the power of the items they put inside it, so Pelor blessed them with a dragon who made his lair in the entranceway so that no one could ever get inside."  And to have the dragon there when the PCs arrive and kill them.

The same idea transfers over the skill challenges.  In the end, you WANT the PCs to pass it so the story can continue.  So you want them to be able to use their best skill to get to the end.  It won't work in every circumstance, but it will work a lot of the time.


----------



## KidSnide (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one.  At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem.  If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it.  If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.



I frequently let PCs propose a skill that they would use to solve a problem at hand.  I have a general DC in mind for a regularly appropriate skill and apply a penalty if you're trying to use an inappropriate skill.

For example, if a character has an amazing acrobatic skill (say +12-15 above level bonus) and a terrible diplomacy skill (say -1 to -3 below level bonus), she may prefer to impress someone with an acrobatic display rather than attempt a hopeless diplomacy roll, but she's still working with a -10 or so penalty.  So, first, she has an incentive to find some 2nd best skill that's more appropriate.  And, second, another party member *with* a good diplomacy skill has a chance to shine.


----------



## Felon (Mar 17, 2008)

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except that leads back to the problem that only one skill matters, the character's best one.  At some point you have to say that a particular skill does not match a particular problem.  If a skill is never useful, the player won't use it.  If a skill is always useful, the player won't ever use anything else, because it's his/her highest bonus.




This is a problem that cropped up in the Iron Heroes game I played in constantly. A player would attempt a stunt involving rebounding off of a wall. The GM might say it requires a Jump check. The player really wanted it to be a Tumble check, because the latter is maxed out while the former has only 1 rank in it. In fact, with Tumble being his best skill, he tries to make every stunt into a Tumble check. In this case, the player says "never mind" and then just makes a vanilla attack, and waits for a chandalier to appear because he suspects that with this GM, chandaliers will always be as "tumbly" props rather than "jumpy" ones. The stunt mechanic that ostensibly rewarded dynamic, creative gameplay quickly showed its true colors as another one-trick-pony tactic. 

It's fine if you can use a skill multiple ways to handle a variety problems, it just needs to be a little more clear when one skill is going to be better-suited for a particular challenge than another skill. It shouldn't be six-or-half-dozen whether you use Acrobatics, History, or Streetwise. Unfortunately, considering what appears to have happened with with ability scores and Reflex, Fort, and Will defenses, I have every reason to believe that the "close enough for government work" mentality will extend to this area as well.


----------



## Will (Mar 17, 2008)

While there are things I dislike about 4e, this isn't one of them.

It may seem like some sort of 'cheating' to let players use different skills to solve a problem, but in my experience it's going to save you from Mr. Diplomacy taking the stage and everyone else reading magazines or sighing loudly until his 'turn' is done.

And, heck, giving people an incentive to come up with bizarre and interesting uses of skills to solve a problem? That's the kind of creativity and lateral thinking I want to ENCOURAGE in my game.

It also sounds like if you want only a few skills to work... you can decide that way. Create an encounter, jot down 'Diplomacy DC 20, Intimidate DC 30 with potentially nasty drawbacks if you fail by 5 or more' and whatnot.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 17, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> But then the only way your players get to be creative is if you do a whole crapload of planning.  This takes some of the onus off the DM and puts it on the shoulders of the players.  It sounds like, by the method you're advocating, the players' choice is between risking your method or guaranteed failure at something you hadn't planned because you don't want them to do that.  This way you can sketch out a more freeform world and then have the players help you fill in the details as the game is played.




That might boil down to a style of DMing and gaming in that case. All but one player (out of six) in my gaming group enjoys a more objective setting, in which many of the details are presented as fact (and yes I have a fair bit of prep time per each combat encounter). In many instances they will probe for more information in case I hadn't described something to its fullest extent, but in most cases I serve as the world and its inhabitants, and the players travel through it. That's sounds like railroading, but it never feels that way to any of the players (and I have asked). 

Now ... let me say, I do have one player who often comes of with 'crazy' ideas (a term he's probably used before) that try to bypass much of the logic laid down in the rules (not my campaign). The player often tries to use rushed Diplomacy checks against an extremely sleighted/pissed off foe in order to head off combat. He complains whenever the party faces monsters with level drain or effects that last more than an encounter. He's the poster child for much of what 4e touts. YET, he is also the same player (of an aristocrat with add on marshal levels --- equivalent to a 4e warlord) who has talked his way into the courts of every noble of every land the PCs have traveled through (and gained their respect in most cases). He's 6th level and he regularly rolls into the mid-30's for Diplomacy.  

All I will say is that from his perspective I am sure he will enjoy a more freeform ad hoc system for D&D. I don't yet know if I will or many of the gamers I know, both in my group and outside it. Rodney Thompson spoke in extreme terms that made it sound like a DM would be lambasted if he tried to check some wildly implausible uses of skills. I don't know. I'm optimistic that we're making much ado about nothing. I personally think the designers do themselves a disservice in some of their pro-4e writings .... but I'm definitely not the first to say that. 

BTW, I pre-ordered 4e already. I look forward to less prep time, but I want to read the skills challenges first. If they're like Uneartherd Arcana's variant rules ... then I have no problem. 

Likewise, I played through Escape from Sembia at the D&D XP (an eladrin ranger ... so much fun!!!) I actually tried to use History in order to get around the oncoming Guard Horde as a joke. I used a more glib example than a sewer grate, but the DM actually said no to my idea. I ended up using Athletics or Acrobatics (can't remember which) to finally kip up on to a roof and get out of their field of vision. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Mar 17, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> All I will say is that from his perspective I am sure he will enjoy a more freeform ad hoc system for D&D. I don't yet know if I will or many of the gamers I know, both in my group and outside it. Rodney Thompson spoke in extreme terms that made it sound like a DM would be lambasted if he tried to check some wildly implausible uses of skills. I don't know. I'm optimistic that we're making much ado about nothing. I personally think the designers do themselves a disservice in some of their pro-4e writings .... but I'm definitely not the first to say that.



As Rodney says, the philosophy of 4e really IS "YES YOU CAN!!"  The books really do enforce this at every step.

It's not that you would be lambasted for saying no.  I said no while running that skill challenge and I certainly wouldn't think ill of a DM who said no.  However, most of the time it's just more fun to say yes and see what happens.  I didn't think this way before I started preparing for D&D XP.  I do now, however.  I had a lot of fun watching parties find their way through the Skill Challenge.  When people were encouraged to innovate they really did.  And everyone seemed to have a lot of fun doing it.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 17, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> I've never run an encounter outside of the strictly equated CR/EL level.  This is because I want the PCs to win.




I don't know if I understand this point. Sticking within the CR system is supposed to give the PCs a better chance of winning than making them face something higher. 



			
				Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> It really is a difference in playstyles again.  If your goal is to simulate a reality exactly, then you are going to have a point where the PCs do something to piss off someone who is WAY too powerful for them and they are all going to die.  They are going to accidentally wander into that dragon's lair they didn't know was there and end up lunch.
> 
> If your goal is a story based one then you simply don't write that sort of thing into the story.




Of course there are very different playing styles. I may be at an extreme end of the spectrum. Some past players have said as much, but I think I've had more success as a DM then displeasure with the following method of running a campaign:

1) after extensive experiences with building a campaign around a story idea, I realized that myself and the players felt railroaded by events. 

2) upon realizing this, I switched to the a method that has actually led to fewer player character deaths than I thought probable in a game like D&D. 

3) essentially, I explicitly told my players that I have no dog in the race. I built a detailed campaign world in which they could aid in development through early, detailed character backgrounds. 

4) For my part I did create a wide array of NPCs that each had their own agendas. I also built the world to account for Good's ability to on occaision tolerate certain strands of Evil. (Essentially Good plus LE and a greedy NE types saw it to be more beneficial to help fight off CE, which would ruin everyone's party). 

5) The PCs then would grope around the world for stuff to do. They can do whatever they want, and its their's to suffer the benefits or negative consequences. They have gone off on several wild tangents that I didn't expect, but its increased their buy and made the game feel more real. 

6) In the end, I also explicitly told the players that by and large, any ruling I hand down will probably be in their favor. They just need to know that with this method, they do have the potential to sometimes face foes wildly above their level. In those cases (in which I often throw up a few hints) they should remember that RUN is always an option. 

7) And yes it was a lot of work for prep time and ad hoc unexpected PC-chosen paths. 

IMO that's the type of objective-reality-fantasy that allows for truly surprising and satisfying outcomes. It helps me feel like I'm a player to in many respects. I forced myself to not have a 'favorite' NPC, and just contented myself to playing NPCs with their own well thought out agendas that sometimes ends up helping the party. More than one session has ended with the party convincing a somewhat hostile group that inmity was not necessary (and of course they got proper XP for overcoming the encounter).

Anyway ..... a dissertation length way of saying, I look forward to 4e making monster design less time consuming, but I do like having published adventures have a select set of DCs for specific skill checks in order for (non-combat) success. I don't like the idea of all skills being equally valid ..... in every situation.

C.I.D.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 17, 2008)

Felon said:
			
		

> This is a problem that cropped up in the Iron Heroes game I played in constantly. A player would attempt a stunt involving rebounding off of a wall. The GM might say it requires a Jump check. The player really wanted it to be a Tumble check, because the latter is maxed out while the former has only 1 rank in it. In fact, with Tumble being his best skill, he tries to make every stunt into a Tumble check. In this case, the player says "never mind" and then just makes a vanilla attack, and waits for a chandalier to appear because he suspects that with this GM, chandaliers will always be as "tumbly" props rather than "jumpy" ones. The stunt mechanic that ostensibly rewarded dynamic, creative gameplay quickly showed its true colors as another one-trick-pony tactic.



That's sub-optimal IH gameplay, though. What you're saying is that the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a bonus (from stunting) simply because that bonus wasn't going to be as high as what he could get _in a completely different situation_ using a different skill. It's not like stunts have a per-day restriction, after all. I think a similar thing will apply in 4e: You'll use the skill that's appropriate in the right situation (or that you can justify as appropriate in the right situation), but different situations will call for a different skill or skills.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 17, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> As Rodney says, the philosophy of 4e really IS "YES YOU CAN!!"  The books really do enforce this at every step.
> 
> It's not that you would be lambasted for saying no.  I said no while running that skill challenge and I certainly wouldn't think ill of a DM who said no.  However, most of the time it's just more fun to say yes and see what happens.  I didn't think this way before I started preparing for D&D XP.  I do now, however.  I had a lot of fun watching parties find their way through the Skill Challenge.  When people were encouraged to innovate they really did.  And everyone seemed to have a lot of fun doing it.




As a DDXP DM then, do you have any insight if the Escape From Sembia skills challenge is truly indicative of what 4e will entail? For reasons already mentioned, I didn't like its ad hoc feel. 

Likewise, I'm glad that you said 'no' and hope you're right in the end. I suspect you will be. Rodney unfortunately wrote a probably extreme version of the 4e version of the Unearthed Arcana skill challenges (which I liked, but have not used in play). 

Cheers,
C.I.D.


----------



## Felon (Mar 18, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That's sub-optimal IH gameplay, though. What you're saying is that the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a bonus (from stunting) simply because that bonus wasn't going to be as high as what he could get _in a completely different situation_ using a different skill. It's not like stunts have a per-day restriction, after all.



It's more like the player willfully ignored the opportunity to gain a penalty from failing the stunt.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Once it has been explicitly stated, yes. Before that, no.  It's like Schroedinger's cat that way.  Any "fact" about the world which does not contradict any previously laid down "fact" could be true.




I like to think of it as: the story is in the process of being told. After it has been told, it's fixed for all time. Up to then, all kinds of stuff can happen.



> It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.



 I am in favour of all three. In particular, I am in favour of any mechanic that increases buy-in, other than (vicarious) personal enrichment.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I like to think of it as: the story is in the process of being told. After it has been told, it's fixed for all time. Up to then, all kinds of stuff can happen.



Right, but my version involves dead cats, so, _bonus_.


----------



## Henry (Mar 18, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I used to feel this way, but in recent years, I've come to find it a bit tedious across the board. I don't want to have every detail of every encounter area (or larger setting) mapped out, and it frustrates me to no end when an intricate webwork of potential encounter hooks or useable terrain gets tossed by the wayside simply because it doesn't match up congruently with the occasions on which PCs need to use it.




I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies. 

To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 18, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies.
> 
> To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.




This sums up everything I've been trying to say.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 18, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> I hope he doesn't mind me using him as an example, but it's DMs like Piratecat who I learned a lot from on this score. PKitty was one of the first DMs who showed me the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it. I sometimes forget about it, but when I do include it, I've always found my games more enriched. In the sewers example, had I not thought of it, it would have immediately set my mind to razored grates, torrential storm drains, alligator-men living in hiding in the deeper parts, or reflex checks to avoid the glorious sudden filth dumps that grace many movies.
> 
> To immediately decide "there are no sewers here" because it didn't fit the original idea I had for the city, would have cut out all those ideas for possible fodder. It still doesn't mean I have to say "yes" to the joker who decides that his Riding skill is sufficient for him to find an elephant sandwiched in a warehouse and ride it out of town.




This is fine and good though .. to a point. Taken to the extreme, I can see players just rambling off ideas until one strikes home with the DM. We're arguing the same thing IMO. Its appropriateness vs. frequency of idea. Player creativity is great in most cases, but if its just a way to half-ass any given problem ..... where's the fun for all sides?

The discussion isn't about PC buy-in, but their ability to control the setting. What's wrong with the DM saying that 'I'm sorry but this city doesn't have a sewer system.' Many of the settlements in campaigns I've run and played in were too poor or medieval too actually have such an accomplishment. In an example aside from sewers, I still say why do players get to decide vast details like this? I want assurances that the DM still has final say (and in a way that won't create built-in strife for 4e) before I wholeheartedly switch. 


C.I.D.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> The discussion isn't about PC buy-in, but their ability to control the setting. What's wrong with the DM saying that 'I'm sorry but this city doesn't have a sewer system.'




Nothing. Did you see anyone saying that it was wrong?


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Nothing. Did you see anyone saying that it was wrong?




That's what I took away from many comments. I did get the sense that arguments would be had between players and DMs around such issues. But this is as much conjecture as our analysis of Rodney's initial blog.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> That's what I took away from many comments. I did get the sense that arguments would be had between players and DMs around such issues.




To be precise, it is mistaking the zeitgeist for the rules.



> But this is as much conjecture as our analysis of Rodney's initial blog.




Yes. And both zeitgeist and rules are subject to change.


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, it is mistaking the zeitgeist for the rules.
> 
> Yes. And both zeitgeist and rules are subject to change.




Let's hope so after the hamfisted Escape from Semiba skill challenges. 

C.I.D.


----------



## Pale Jackal (Mar 18, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.
> 
> Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.




Indeed, and it's clever/cool enough that I'd _probably_ have it just pop into existence. A DM who did otherwise wouldn't necessarily be doing the wrong thing, of course.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 18, 2008)

Will said:
			
		

> And, heck, giving people an incentive to come up with bizarre and interesting uses of skills to solve a problem? That's the kind of creativity and lateral thinking I want to ENCOURAGE in my game.



This.



			
				Cyronax said:
			
		

> This is fine and good though .. to a point. Taken to the extreme, I can see players just rambling off ideas until one strikes home with the DM. We're arguing the same thing IMO. Its appropriateness vs. frequency of idea. Player creativity is great in most cases, but if its just a way to half-ass any given problem ..... where's the fun for all sides?



If taken to extremes, I will simply rule that too many implausible ideas racks up one failure for wasting time pursuing dead ends. 

My views on the new skill system can be found in my CircvsMaximvs blog, and are reproduced below if you don't want to click the link. 

I've thought more about the new skill system and I've gone from grudging thumbs up to fairly positive. It seems to me that I can use it to resolve some of the tension between player ability and character ability.

Of course, it should be noted that the new skill system isn't entirely new. The idea of complex skill challenges that require more than one successful skill check to overcome had previously appeared in the 3e Unearthed Arcana. The main difference between the new system and the one presented in Unearthed Arcana is the explicit acknowledgement that the skill challenge could be open-ended, and different characters with different skills might be able to contribute to overcoming it if the players can come up with a plausible reason why their individual skills might help. However, even that idea is not completely new - coming up with crazy creative schemes and convincing your DM that they could work is a tradition as old as role-playing.

The improvement I see in the new skill system is that it better balances (in my view) player ability with character ability by providing a nice, structured middle ground between the emphasis on character ability in 3e and the emphasis on player ability in the earlier editions. Rewarding player ability was a delicate balance in 3e for me because on the one hand, I wanted to reward clever and perceptive players, but on the other hand, I wanted character abilities to mean something. So, good player ability pretty much translated into a bonus on the skill check. However, if you had to use a skill that you had no ranks in, even a +4 bonus could mean that you had no practical chance of success. Of course, I considered it a feature at the time - an experienced DM could always put ways to bypass the need for a critical skill check or enough items and information that grant circumstance bonuses in an adventure, so that the lack of ranks in a key skill would not stop a good player.

The 4e approach of abstracting a skill challenge into a number of required "successes" and allowing the player to select a skill and describe how he will use it to overcome the challenge is, in my view, a good balance. Some skills will be directly applicable to the skill challenge at hand, and even relatively inexperienced players will immediately be able to see how they can be used. Other skills may not be so obviously applicable, but an experienced and creative player might be able to find a way to use them. Player ability thus increases the character's options, but is still required to work through the character's abilities: you still need to roll well to get your successes, after all.

The "multiple successes required" abstraction also creates more granularity when it comes to overcoming a challenge, and is another variable which player ability could affect. For example, certain actions by the player might result in automatic successes, lowering the number of successes that the character has to roll for. A simple puzzle might require three successful checks, for example, but if a player is able to solve the puzzle within 2 minutes real time, it might count as two successes, while a partial solution might count as one. The characters ought to be required to roll at least one success, though, so that character ability is still necessary.

In addition to allowing for greater player input into skill challenge resolution, this increased granularity could be a good mechanism for allowing previous successes (or failures) to affect future events. For example, the PCs may require ten successes to persuade a king not to go to war. However, if they had earlier found evidence that a pro-war noble was actually an agent of a third country, presenting it to the king might count as four successes.


----------



## Voss (Mar 18, 2008)

So, um.  To paraphrase the article,

'We can ignore the cynics because their opinions don't count.  And there are these really awesome mechanics that we aren't going to show you.  In fact, they're the most awesome mechanics yet, and you'll just have to trust us and buy the game sight unseen, because really, these things we aren't going to show you are the best things ever!!!!'

Right...  :\


----------



## Cyronax (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> So, um.  To paraphrase the article,
> 
> 'We can ignore the cynics because their opinions don't count.  And there are these really awesome mechanics that we aren't going to show you.  In fact, they're the most awesome mechanics yet, and you'll just have to trust us and buy the game sight unseen, because really, these things we aren't going to show you are the best things ever!!!!'
> 
> Right...  :\




Wow, Voss. I need to learn to be that brief. Include your sentiments plus love for Unearthed Arcana's skill challenges (for a fifth time?) and I think my take on his tone is obvious. 

Rodney, shoot thy self in the foot, successful hunter?

C.I.D.


----------



## Mistwell (Mar 18, 2008)

breschau said:
			
		

> I'm so glad that Gleemax owns my brain.
> 
> Considering how crap-tastic Gleemax is, would anyone consider posting the blog here?




Sure.



> 4E on the DM's Side of the Screen
> Posted By: WotC_Rodney, 3/11/2008 12:42:33 AM
> 
> It's been a wild couple of weeks since D&D XP. Lots of people are excited. The cynics are still cynics. D&D 4E is great, it's fun, it's a board game, it's a CCG, it's ruining my childhood. The opinions run the whole length of the spectrum. By and large the response at D&D Experience was overwhelmingly positive, if the reports of event organizers and attendees are to be believed. It's a good sign, and I'm feeling very zen about the whole thing lately. It was getting to the point where I was just running over with frustration because so many conclusions were being jumped to and so many people were savaging a game they hadn't played yet. I realized that nothing I say or do will change any opinions on that, so I'm just going to go along for the ride and talk about what I'm enjoying about the game instead.
> ...


----------



## Voss (Mar 18, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Wow, Voss. I need to learn to be that brief. Include your sentiments plus love for Unearthed Arcana's skill challenges (for a fifth time?) and I think my take on his tone is obvious.
> 
> Rodney, shoot thy self in the foot, successful hunter?
> 
> C.I.D.




Heh.  Mostly I'm just tired.  I've got a rant about sewers in the back of my head too, and how I dislike any system that reminds me of 1st edition Mage: the Angsting, where if the players can BS well, the characters get giant magical bonuses of win.


----------



## shilsen (Mar 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Once it has been explicitly stated, yes. Before that, no.  It's like Schroedinger's cat that way.  Any "fact" about the world which does not contradict any previously laid down "fact" could be true.




Bingo! I joke with my players that I'm Schroedinger's DM, because nothing in the world is set in stone until they're aware of it, but once they are it ties in seamlessly with whatever has come before. And, of course, if there's a contradiction, it means there's something inaccurate about the earlier "fact" or the newly discovered one.



> It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.




Sounds like a win-win to me, but I'm not assuming that my tastes fit everyone's. I know there are DMs out there (as this thread has already illustrated) who get the willies at the idea of giving the players/PCs even this much narrative control, and there are also other reasons why people might resist such a system.


----------



## mattcolville (Mar 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Once it has been explicitly stated, yes. Before that, no.  It's like Schroedinger's cat that way.  Any "fact" about the world which does not contradict any previously laid down "fact" could be true.
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.




I find some players really enjoy this, but most players don't like it. In my experience. They want to believe the world exists, is real. Not just something you made up. Letting them make part of it up damages this. In some cases, destroys it.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 18, 2008)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> I find some players really enjoy this, but most players don't like it. In my experience. They want to believe the world exists, is real. Not just something you made up. Letting them make part of it up damages this. In some cases, destroys it.




I try to compromise by doing it outside actual play. I will encourage players to come up backgrounds for their characters, creating NPCs and settings which logically fit into the world. Often, I will take their rough ideas and reshape them to fit my own vision of things.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> So, um.  To paraphrase the article,
> 
> 'We can ignore the cynics because their opinions don't count.  And there are these really awesome mechanics that we aren't going to show you.  In fact, they're the most awesome mechanics yet, and you'll just have to trust us and buy the game sight unseen, because really, these things we aren't going to show you are the best things ever!!!!'
> 
> Right...  :\




Wow, that's possibly the most cynical, word-twisting interpretation of anything I wrote. Nowhere did I invalidate anyone's opinions or say they don't count. As for not showing you the mechanics, we DID show you the mechanics at D&D Experience. You didn't go? That doesn't mean we didn't showcase the mechanics to some people, and it was in fact in reference to that event that I wrote, specifically the _Escape from Sembia_ adventure, which many people on these boards have had a chance to play and report their experiences. However, I was _lamenting_ that we'd not said much about the noncombat encounter system, not trying to dangle the information in front of you. 



			
				Cyronax said:
			
		

> Wow, Voss. I need to learn to be that brief. Include your sentiments plus love for Unearthed Arcana's skill challenges (for a fifth time?) and I think my take on his tone is obvious.
> 
> Rodney, shoot thy self in the foot, successful hunter?
> 
> C.I.D.




I think you're hearing what you want to hear, frankly. Not only did I *explicitly* point out that what I like was nothing wholly new, nor something you couldn't do before, but I also went out of my way to point out that what I DO like is that it has gone from being an auxiliary subsystem to a fully fleshed out core assumption of the system. No, I didn't shoot myself in the foot, you just seem to want to see my feet up on the target.


----------



## Will (Mar 18, 2008)

Amusingly, I had been dabbling at a system vaguely like this (though more structured and, as a result... worse) for skill challenges in 3.5e after watching a series of disastrous social scenes where many players felt completely pointless and thus got bored.

Giving them an OOC challenge, to find clever ideas and ways to leverage their skill, helps both seed ideas into the game, reward them for 'doing something' with their characters, and finding an APPROPRIATE direction within the scene.

Another idea I had was the 'DC 0' idea; if someone comes up with an obviously clever, useful idea/approach/statement, sometimes no real skill check is needed -- the group moves toward the goal simply by mentioning it.

I don't know if this will be in 4e, but feel free to steal it if it isn't; it's simply a convenient short-hand for ideas that should help by their inclusion.

For example, let's say the party needs to get information from an orphan, though is in no particular rush. Jane has no particular social skills, but was also an orphan; her player pipes up and mentions that she will sit with the orphan a while and talk about her experiences, try to strike up a bond with the orphan.

A ball-buster DM says 'ROLL DIPLOMACY' or what-not. A better approach might be to add one 'success' toward the goal and, if the character has Diplomacy, ALSO allow a roll.

While 4e will apparantly give people more chance to roll on stuff that isn't trained, I suspect there will still be analogous situations.


----------



## Wisdom Penalty (Mar 18, 2008)

Rodney -

To be fair, if you post an article, you're going to get some negative feedback - even if your blog is the best thing in gaming since Gygax made the rust monster.  It's easier to tear things down than to build them, and easier to be against things than for them.  As such, it follows that you'll have a number of people who take the easy road - for various and sundry reasons - and stain everything you say with the smear of negativity. 'Tis life in these times.

In the interim, I'd humbly suggest you do one of three things:

(a) ignore the whining,
(b) try to filter through whining to find an intelligent rebuttal,
(c) ignore the messageboards as a whole.

None of them are great options, as:

(a) is difficult because of Gore's Law: Whining increases exponentially to the inverse of the people that care about the poster's opinion.  

(b) is tough because there are only a few folks around these parts that contribute meaningful discussion when lambasting designers' blogs and 4E updates. 

and (c) is tough because, well, you have to listen to your customer base or potentially miss out on valid criticisms and better ways to skin a cat. (For example, Henry's post in this very thread was an excellent addendum to your blog.)

The good news is I really enjoyed your post.

The bad news is I'm easy, ugly, and stupid.

W.P.


----------



## arscott (Mar 18, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If there is anything I don't like on 4E, it's definitely that there are to many "Thom-" designers.



This issue has been noted and fixed by the 4e team.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2008)

arscott said:
			
		

> This issue has been noted and fixed by the 4e team.



Phewt, They can tell me what they want - as long as their board names are still indistinguishable, I don't care!



Alternative Response: 

Wow. These guys are really thinking of everything.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 18, 2008)

Cyronax said:
			
		

> Isn't there such a thing as objective reality in a campaign though?
> 
> I am fairly creative as a DM in adjudicating rules, but in certain situations there are only a few or one way to proceed in a certain tactic.




Ironically, I find that to be a very computer-game way of playing. By that, it reminds me of the computer adventure games that I used to play many eons ago, when to resolve a problem and pass on to the next section you had to come up with the *exact* method that the programmer had thought of to continue. (I guess that the same principle still turns up even in modern games, although it is disguised in 'jump here, twist there, shoot that' kind of actions).

Too much depended on "Use the Cucumber to Press the Button on the Pedestal".

In RPGs the same problem can easily present itself. One adventure I ran, the PCs were captured and put into a room. Someone says "Is there a ventilation shaft?"

If I say "No", then everyone just twiddles their fingers until the next thing happens (along my railroad?) 

If I say "Yes, (why not?)", then the party attempts a daring escape attempt crawling through big air ducts, perhaps pursued by the enemy who is periodically shooting.

Which one is more fun for everyone? I think the latter is. I remember the situation though because I said 'No' rather than 'Yes', and regretted it within 30 minutes.

I can almost picture the scene in 'Aliens' 

_DM: The monsters have got past the barricade - the sensor tells you they are inside the room, although you can't see them!

Hicks: I'll look up in the roof space...

DM: You can see dozens of the aliens crawling through the roof space towards you!

Burke: I run out the back way and lock the door behind me! See you, suckers!

Ripley: Damn. Hey, newt was hiding in ventilation shafts earlier. Are there any in this room?

DM: (checks existing map.) No, you're all gonna die!

or 

DM: Yes - do you want to try to get it open?_

Cheers


----------



## Primal (Mar 18, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> A WoTC developer is  asserting in his blog that it's appropriate for the PC to determine which skill will get him out of a given situation (the History check to find the sewer grate).
> 
> I don't think it is a stretch to imagine that the PHB will incorporate this paradigm.  Why else would he write about it?
> 
> Ken




I see no problem with this, because many nar games utilize such "shared storytelling" mechanics (although you still need the DM's approval). In fact, Dust Devils explicitly tells the Dealer to encourage the players to max out skills and also to use them in inventive ways in conflicts. This ensures that the players get involved in the story and encourages character immersion. 

Basicly, it's a very gamist element. Here's this task and if I pick the "easy" way I'm almost certainly going to pull it off, BUT should I choose the "hard" way, my PC gets more XP or probably some extra information. Usually metagaming in D&D is seen as "bad", but here I see it actually leading to better stories. 

In the end, it really doesn't matter *how* the PC escaped capture, since that is the goal anyway, or the story (momentarily) stops there. Besides, it might lead to other events, such as a combat encounter in the sewers or meeting a mysterious NPC that the DM has had no way of introducing before. I see a lot of storytelling (and role-playing) possibilities in this new skill system. How well it is received by players and DMs alike and how well does it "fit" in with the "crunchy" and highly tactical emphasis on the rest of the mechanics -- I guess we'll see. Personally I like it.


----------



## Derren (Mar 18, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> In RPGs the same problem can easily present itself. One adventure I ran, the PCs were captured and put into a room. Someone says "Is there a ventilation shaft?"
> 
> If I say "No", then everyone just twiddles their fingers until the next thing happens (along my railroad?)
> 
> If I say "Yes, (why not?)", then the party attempts a daring escape attempt crawling through big air ducts, perhaps pursued by the enemy who is periodically shooting.




And why do the PCs just sit around doing nothing when there is no ventilation shaft? This sounds more like a player problem to me where they expect the DM to hand them everything on a silver platter instead of thinking of something for themselves which takes the actual situation into account.
And why is having unimagitive players who can't think of something else besides crawling through an ventilation shaft railroading? Imo the players should have total freedom of what to do and what not, but they have to live with the consequences of their actions (or in this case inaction)


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Mar 18, 2008)

Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.




This.


----------



## Voss (Mar 18, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> Wow, that's possibly the most cynical, word-twisting interpretation of anything I wrote. Nowhere did I invalidate anyone's opinions or say they don't count. As for not showing you the mechanics, we DID show you the mechanics at D&D Experience. You didn't go? That doesn't mean we didn't showcase the mechanics to some people, and it was in fact in reference to that event that I wrote, specifically the _Escape from Sembia_ adventure, which many people on these boards have had a chance to play and report their experiences. However, I was _lamenting_ that we'd not said much about the noncombat encounter system, not trying to dangle the information in front of you.




So, wait.  You did show the mechanics that you were saying you couldn't show people?  And by that, I mean this-


			
				you said:
			
		

> I find it particularly interesting that the areas where I feel we've improved the game the most aren't the ones we're showing off.




That is dangling.  Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.


And the specific example... feh.  So the player magically creates sewers.  So what?  He *still* has to elude the guards!  Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards?  At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.  

It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.


----------



## Imban (Mar 18, 2008)

My take on this is simple:

Any feature of the terrain which I have explicitly detailed, either by describing it or drawing it on the map, is there, no questions asked. Any feature of the terrain which corresponds to / goes against my mental image but I haven't described by accident (if you've been thrown into a barred cell with plate metal walls, and ask if it has a ventilation duct, I'll probably answer no if I meant for it not to have one) is there or not as appropriate. Oops.

For the rest of the stuff, if it's not patent nonsense, you can describe it being there or ask if it's there and effectively "create" it on the fly.

(I'd be a little leery of letting someone *just* escape pursuing guards through a sewer underneath a city, though. That seems like the sort of thing I'd definitely allow if a sewer was appropriate there, but it also seems like the sort of thing that would get you out of the frying pan and into the fire. Sewers in D&D *not* being monster-infested deathtraps is pretty rare.)


----------



## Primal (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> So, wait.  You did show the mechanics that you were saying you couldn't show people?  And by that, I mean this-
> 
> 
> That is dangling.  Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.
> ...




Hmmm... I understand your point, but see my reply to Heffrung above. I actually see this new system engaging the players more in the story, but that's just my opinion. I guess that the 'complex skill check' (requiring several Victories) would be reasonable in this case (to escape the guards).


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> And the specific example... feh.  So the player magically creates sewers.  So what?  He *still* has to elude the guards!  Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards?  At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.




The hiding part can safely be subsumed into the jumping-into-the-sewers part. It doesn't take much skill, brains or innovation to pull a sewer grating closed. Similarly, it can be assumed the entrance is relatively obscure and out-of-the-way, otherwise you wouldn't need a History check to know it was there.



> It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.




To be precise, the player used his brains to come up with a novel way to relate a given skill to the problem at hand. I suppose it's possible that god came down from heaven and put that idea freshly-formed into the player's head, which would mean the player couldn't claim credit for it. However, this should be considered unlikely.

(You'll note I managed to avoid all use of the word "roleplaying", whether in a positive or negative light, in the above. This is deliberate.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> So, wait.  You did show the mechanics that you were saying you couldn't show people?  And by that, I mean this-
> 
> 
> That is dangling.  Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.






			
				Moridin on his blog said:
			
		

> However, I was lamenting that we'd not said much about the noncombat encounter system, not trying to dangle the information in front of you.



He was lamenting. Maybe he "accidently" also dangled a cool subystem in front of you, but was not his intention. l



> And the specific example... feh.  So the player magically creates sewers.  So what?  He *still* has to elude the guards!  Or do the sewers come with an SEP field and anyone near them is ignored by the guards?  At some point he still has to get escape their attention/hide/distract them in some way, so he can get into the sewers without the guards noticing.
> 
> It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.



This is only part of the escape. The next step is "you are in the sewers. How do you avoid the Guards finding you there"? The implicit idea is each succesful check means less and less guards can track you, until you finally reached a point where you have evaded the guards _and_ left the city. If this would have been the "final" check in a sequence of rolls, the sewer might have a fast exit from the city, and the guards didn't follow you. If it was just one of many to come, the guards might eventually begin searching the sewer, too, and you need to hide from them. 

The roleplaying part is where the player decides what his character would try. Off course the character would also try to use his strengths. If the player isn't very creative "I will try to remember which route the citizens used in the past to get out of the city". The DM might decide that this is okay, or that this is very hard (since it's too specific to know from history), or just say it doesn't work. 
Interesting question is how you use "this doesn't work". Simplest approach might be "tell the DM something until he allows you to roll", but an alternative might be to still let the player roll - but only to see if he wasted time (successes don't count, but failures do).


----------



## small pumpkin man (Mar 18, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> My take on this is simple:
> 
> Any feature of the terrain which I have explicitly detailed, either by describing it or drawing it on the map, is there, no questions asked. Any feature of the terrain which corresponds to / goes against my mental image but I haven't described by accident (if you've been thrown into a barred cell with plate metal walls, and ask if it has a ventilation duct, I'll probably answer no if I meant for it not to have one) is there or not as appropriate. Oops.
> 
> ...



Yes, well, remember that when using this system you are likely using the multiple success rules, as they're supposed to go together. The point is compared to the way many 3.x games were played, that you encourage player imagination (by allowing their wacky plans to work) while at the same time extending the scene out so that it doesn't just go "I find the sewer, city escaped".


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why do the PCs just sit around doing nothing when there is no ventilation shaft? This sounds more like a player problem to me where they expect the DM to hand them everything on a silver platter instead of thinking of something for themselves which takes the actual situation into account.




Yes, Derren.



> And why is having unimagitive players who can't think of something else besides crawling through an ventilation shaft railroading? Imo the players should have total freedom of what to do and what not, but they have to live with the consequences of their actions (or in this case inaction)




So, just to make sure I understand you correctly... the players have total freedom to do anything they want, within the confines of a sealed room?


----------



## Wolfspider (Mar 18, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> This is must one of those sim/narr style dichotomies that 4e has revealed to me.
> 
> Because at my table, that sewer will never exist until the player invents it.




This must be one of the reasons why Cinematic Unisystem appeals to both of us so much.

Player:  "Ahhh!  I've got to get away from these zombies!  Is there a sewer nearby?"

Me:  "Spend a drama point and there is!"

Player:  "Ok, spent.  I crawl down the manhole and pull the cover behind me.  Whew!  That was close.  Hmmm.  It sure is dark in here...."

Me:  "As you fumble in your pocket for a lighter to illuminate your new situation, you hear something shamblling down in the sewer with you, but you're not sure what it is."

Player:  "Gulp!  Do rats shamble?"


----------



## Ian O'Rourke (Mar 18, 2008)

Hah, this old chestnut. It largely comes down to playstyle, as everyone knows, so trying to debate it backwards and forwards isn't going to work.

I like declaritive use of skills. I like them because I don't want to play games that involve me getting out of the DM's puzzle, whatever that may be. I don't want to run games in which the players have to figure out how to get out of my 'puzzle'. I mean 'puzzle' in the broadest sense, insert situation if you like.

For me, that road leads to pixel bitching, in which the players try and click the right pixel.

It's not interesting. The only decisions that are interesting are ones that involve dramatic choices or make things more exciting (ideally both). Being stuck in any situation, and I notice the 'locked room debate has started', isn't interesting. Figuring your way out isn't interesting. It only becomes interesting if it leads to a more exciting situation or involves dramatic character choice.

The way I see it, if the player can generate this through declaritive use of skills it makes my job (a) easier and (b) may well generate something that player is more specifically interested in.

If a player has a skill that can be used to declare there is a garbage grill in the wall while being stuck in a dead end corridor in the Death Star while be shot at by Stormtroopers I'm going to say yes. I don't want them to die. I don't want them to keep pixel bitching until they find a solution only I'm happy with. So, I'm fine with a skill declaring the garbage grill as it may just trigger my thoughts to have it lead to a garbage campactor.....

I can't think of everything afterall, and there is six people at the table not just me. Plus, they have their characters in mind and how they want to play them.


----------



## Derren (Mar 18, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> So, just to make sure I understand you correctly... the players have total freedom to do anything they want, within the confines of a sealed room?




Yes, and that includes finding a way to escape this confined room. But they have to work with how the room looks and what tools are available and should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.
Also the PCs don't automatically escape just because they should according to the story. I, as a DM don't write a book. I set the stage for the PCs, populate it with adventure possibilities and then let the PCs do whatever they want. If they want to follow one of my adventure hooks, fine. If not, also fine. if they have fun with it they can set up a baking shop in town. Will it make a good story? Probably not but if the PCs want to do that....


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 18, 2008)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> This must be one of the reasons why Cinematic Unisystem appeals to both of us so much.



Spot on (as was your example).

The fact that D&D is finally meeting me halfway is a clue to my current enthusiasm.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 18, 2008)

Greg K said:
			
		

> It's a good article, but rmy reaction was this was nothing new.  I and the GMs that I have played with have been doing things  like this with skills for a long time. There was even a section in the DMs guide talking about alternative skill uses and, of course, expanded skill uses in various products.  It might also be why I have seen the issue of players over focusing on a few select skills to keep  them maxed and ignoring other skills to be a player or group issue and not a game issue.  If the DM makes skills relevant, players will learn that focusing on keeping a few skills maxed rather  than diversifying is not always a good thing.




Ditto. The system is already there, all we need is better guidelines.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, and that includes finding a way to escape this confined room.




Which can include a ventilation shaft.



> But they have to work with how the room looks and what tools are available and should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.




The tools available are one's brain. The method is to consider the possibilities, one of which is looking for a ventilation shaft. If there is no good reason for there not to be a ventilation shaft, then there is no good reason not to let the player's idea work.



> Also the PCs don't automatically escape just because they should according to the story. I, as a DM don't write a book.




Correct. The players do that.



> I set the stage for the PCs, populate it with adventure possibilities and then let the PCs do whatever they want.




Such as writing a story.


----------



## cwhs01 (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> It doesn't sound like theres much roleplaying involved- the streetwise character bringing gangs into the situation has some potential, but the sewer example sounds like the player talked the GM into allowing him to make a random roll to beat the challenge.





Its pretty obvious that you dislike what you've seen of the skill system. But what i'm not really sure about is what exactly you dislike about it and why.

maybe you could give an example of a skill system from another rpg that you liked? or an example of a skill based encounter from your own campaign?




			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> It seems like: 1. Cooperative world design; 2. A huge burden off the DM; and 3. Emotional buy-in by players ("I made that!"); to me.




I'm hopeful that the system will encourage all of these. especially points 1, 2 and 3.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, and that includes finding a way to escape this confined room. But they have to work with how the room looks and what tools are available and should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.




No one said it 'magically appears' or that the players decide that there is a ventillation shaft. If you as GM just described the room in such detail that there is no ventillation shaft, then there isn't one. If the players ask a reasonable question of whether there is one in the cell (as seen in many movies), then you as DM decide whether there is one or not. It is still your decision as DM. What people are suggesting is that you learn to say yes to make the game more interesting when supplied with reasonable ideas that you hadn't thought of during prep. A good DM will make it seem like the ventillation shaft was 'always there' when he designed the cell so as to not ruin the sense of verisimilitude. If the players ask rediculous questions like, "Is there a full-grown bull elephant in the tiny cell that can help us bust through the outer wall?" First, you should ask that player to at least refrain from drug use on game nights and possibly seek help. Then you should ignore their question and wait for more reasoned queries.


----------



## satori01 (Mar 18, 2008)

"Yes You Can" is a great game philosophy especially as it applies to skills.  One of the worst things about 3.X is so many of the skills have easily forgotten rules and specific rules....Jump & Hide I am looking at you.

I Like that skill should be broadened.  A single History check, as opposed to one posters suggestion that the History check should give a bonus on a Knowledge local check.  Specifiably detailing every aspect of a skill can lead to rigid thinking, and frankly some redundancy,  does one truly need Spellcraft and Arcana.....pretty much a character if they have one, will have the other.  Same thing for Profession type skills,  would it not be safe to say the Profession Sailor: pretty much allows for knowledge and use of ropes, balance, and sailing terms.  Yet in 3.5 you pretty much have to play a rogue to get Use Rope, Balance, Climb.

My big question is if skills have combat applications, are those applications either more powerful if standard actions, or easier to use...say as minor actions.  Intimidate in combat is generally a subpar action.


----------



## Lizard (Mar 18, 2008)

One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?

Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"

How does that work in the context of the mechanics? My understanding was that the whole point of skill challenges was to allow everyone to participate and avoid the netrunner/skill monkey problem. The group accumulates successes in a vary abstract way, and the totality of all the rolls is the 'skill encounter'.

The way some people are describing it, the abstract skill challenge and the tactical combat system are used concurrently, and I don't see that as solving the problem it was intended to. If the sewer-runner stops to fight dire rats while everyone else twiddles their thumbs, we're back to the same issue. And if he doesn't, a lot of people's enthusiasm for the potential of this system is misplaced. From what I can tell, this is a very abstract system -- there isn't really a gangwar, there aren't really sewers -- those are descriptions of the results of the roll, just as "You have a nasty gash on your shoulder from that orc" is the description of the purely abstract result of an attack roll. The set of rolls/results for a skill challenge, like a combat encounter, take place in their own bubble of space time. It's like a montage scene in a movie.

We may need to see more example of actual play.


----------



## hong (Mar 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?
> 
> Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"
> 
> ...



 I actually asked a similar thing in another thread. Reposting here because this is probably a more appropriate thread:

One thing about the new approach to skills is that it might require more forethought and planning, or at least better improvisational skills within the context of the storyline, to DM.

Under the "task resolution" setup, you can pretty much handle events as they crop up. The PCs talk to the guards, fine, make a Diplomacy check (or run it freeform). They botch it, make a Str check to run away. Make a Hide check to hide. Make a Climb check to climb over the wall. And so on, until you eventually get tired, or the guards catch them, or whatever.

Under the "conflict resolution" setup, you have to consider possible events as part of an overarching conflict. Say they botch their conversation with the guards. What is the conflict now? Maybe it's to get away (the immediate conflict). Or maybe it's to get back on track with whatever they wanted to do in the first place (longer-term conflict). Deciding which is more appropriate may not be something that D&D DMs are familiar with.


----------



## Carnivorous_Bean (Mar 18, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> Rodney's Blog
> 
> This has been the best tidbit yet.
> 
> I hope this helps alleviate the "4E is a wargame" concern that many here have.




I like the approach they're taking, and it sounds great to me.

However, I know that the hardcore 4th edition haters are going to hate this equally, too. They're just going to say "it's going to ruin roleplaying by tying it to rules mechanics." 

Of course, their demands are basically illogical. They claim to want a system that's going to encourage role-playing, but which has no mechanical aspect or effect whatsoever. This nebulous, never-never version of "role-playing rules" which encourages deep role-playing while leaving player choice infinite and having no mechanical consequences is actually like cool fire -- it's impossible. But by demanding the impossible, they can condemn 4th edition for not delivering it, which is really what they're after anyway.

That's fine -- I have no objection to someone hating 4th edition, really. But I'm pointing out to you that this article is going to do nothing to alleviate the 4th edition hate, because *nothing * can.


----------



## Nytmare (Mar 18, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> the value of training yourself to say "yes" rather than "no" to a player, to take a player's inventive idea and see what ways I can run with it.



I would like to take this opportunity to again encourage anyone who is interested in this skill system to get a copy of "Truth in Comedy" by Del Close, Charna Halpern, and Kim Johnson.  Yes it's a book about improvisational comedy, no that's not the only thing it's good for.


----------



## Uzzy (Mar 18, 2008)

Despite being one of the 4th Edition 'Haters', I quite like this way of using skill checks. I liked it in 3rd edition too! I'm surprised that people use it, to be honest. 

I mean, if a player asked me if they could use x skill in y situation to achieve z, then I'd usually say yes they could try, unless the proposed action was obviously impossible. This doesn't seem all that new.  

I'm more curious about the shape of the advice that's going to be given, and if DM's will be left to adjudicate in every case. Will adventures have long lists of possible ways to use skills in certain events, perhaps?

Either way, seeing an article on the advice given would be nice and entirely doable. It sure beats posts about 'This is great, but we can't show you'.


----------



## RodneyThompson (Mar 18, 2008)

Voss said:
			
		

> That is dangling.  Its the same thing that you folks have been saying since October/November- The noncombat stuff is REALLY SO AMAZINGLY AWESOME... but we aren't going to show it.




Actually, I was referring to the Dungeon Mastering side of the game as a whole, not the noncombat encounter system. If you do more than cherry pick that one line, you'd notice that was in the section where I discuss how I think the improvements to DMing are larger than the improvements to playing, and why. Also note that this is on my personal blog, not in an official article. So, when I say I wish we were showing off more DM stuff it means exactly that--that I wish we were showing off more DM stuff. 

I thought I peppered the blog entry with enough examples of things that have been released--such as encounter building, which is discussed by Mike and Dave in the podcast, or the specific noncombat encounter example from _Escape from Sembia_--that it would be clear the point I was trying to make.


----------



## keterys (Mar 18, 2008)

Don't try to wriggle your way out of this one, Rodney. Next you'll expect people to not quote you out of context, blame you for the ills of the world, and think you're a big fat meanie.

I blame you for episode 1-3 of Star Wars. Yeah. I went there 

P.S. I really bet that most of the wotc folks are chomping at the bit to be able to _really_ talk about everything.


----------



## Wormwood (Mar 18, 2008)

Moridin said:
			
		

> I thought I peppered the blog entry with enough examples of things that have been released--such as encounter building, which is discussed by Mike and Dave in the podcast, or the specific noncombat encounter example from _Escape from Sembia_--that it would be clear the point I was trying to make.



To be fair, I think _a lot _ of people grokked your point.

Seemed clear enough to me at least.


----------



## Irda Ranger (Mar 18, 2008)

keterys said:
			
		

> I blame you for episode 1-3 of Star Wars.



The Internet has reached a new low.





			
				Derren said:
			
		

> But they ... should not expect that magically a ventilation shaft appears just because they want it to.



Oh fuss off. The whole campaign world is one of make-believe. Everything in it magically appears because _someone _wants it to. Why should the DM be the only one who can do it?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Mar 18, 2008)

Mr Thompson's Blog said:
			
		

> Time for a combat example, though. Tonight we played in a bastardized continuation of Mearls' Scalegloom Hall adventure from D&D XP. I was playing the halfling paladin, and at one point I was knocked unconscious. As I lay dying on the ground, the kobold that speared me grabbed my shield and declared it his trophy, running off to engage the fighter. After some healing from the cleric, I got up and faced a choice: go back and get my shield (optimal choice, as it raises my defenses), or leap across the chasm to take out the kobolds that were attacking the party ranger. I decided to do the latter, because that's just like a paladin to go leaping across a chasm to save his stalwart ally, with no need of a shield with the gods on your side. We won (barely, I ended the fight with 3 hp), but I was able to do this and succeed because I had options that let me choose a course of action. *I knew that I'd take more damage without a shield, but I also knew I had an at-will power that provided me with temporary hit points, effectively acting as a round-by-round buffer against death.* I chose to go that route because I had the means to do so, and I think it was both roleplaying choice and a successful choice.



I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'.  Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"?  Depending on the numbers, the at-will temporary hit points are acting _exactly as the shield would mechanically_ by providing damage protection.  In fact, the at-will ability likely works better than the shield, as you are guaranteed a certain amount of DR.  This is a prime example of a trivial choice.  The shield is unimportant, mechanically, since there is an ability that more or less mimics what the shield does, which is to mitigate damage.  In most cases, the at-will ability is probably more effective, although it may cost some kind of action, likely minor, possibly free.  Even as a minor action, you get your attack, exactly as you would with a shield.



			
				Irda Ranger said:
			
		

> Oh fuss off. The whole campaign world is one of make-believe. Everything in it magically appears because _someone _wants it to. Why should the DM be the only one who can do it?



Because that has historically been the referee's task.  Otherwise, you can remove the GM and play a round-robin freeform storytelling session.  What else should the players be doing?  Deciding the composition of an encounter ("I made my History check and remembered there are no Ogres in these hills, only Kobold Minions")?  Determining the placement of traps ("My Dungeoneering roll tells me the walls are too thick to have a spear trap there")?

There has to be some level of objective reality, even when the characters aren't looking.  An example I used a long time ago was a treasury vault.  Is the local baron thinking "Well, I am only expecting inexperienced thieves to attempt to steal from me, so I had better use simple locks and easily bypassed traps to secure it."  Or will the baron get the best security money can buy?  Granted, there may not be much in the coffers, or it may have been a bad harvest one year, but they will still get the best they can afford, and upgrade as soon and as often as possible.  This presumes the baron has been around for more than the ten minutes prior to the players running into them.  This kind of persistant history is precisely what makes a game interesting and not just a story-telling session with some fiddly rules*.

I agree, saying 'yes' to your players is good, but only up to a point.  As mentioned earlier, if they are just pixel hunting until they find the right place, most players will get a bit miffed if they run into a wall where throwing random skills until they stick doesn't work.  If there is a specific situation or sequence of events you want to occur, the players will probably get frustrated when their usual reward mechanism fails.

*Which is a perfectly valid play-style.  I just disagree that is the best play-style _for everyone_.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Mar 18, 2008)

Li Shenron said:
			
		

> Ditto. The system is already there, all we need is better guidelines.



I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.

That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'.  Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"?



If I am not entirely mistaken, Shield and the Paladin ability to gain temporary hit points "stack" or can be used concurrently. He just felt "safe enough" with relying on the temporary hit points.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 18, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I find it interesting what people consider 'sub-optimal'.  Isn't a shield the same thing as a "round-by-round buffer against death"?  Depending on the numbers, the at-will temporary hit points are acting _exactly as the shield would mechanically_ by providing damage protection.




Yes. This was Rodney's point, actually. 4E gives characters options for filling their roles. In 3E the character would have to decide between the suboptimal choice of charging back into battle without his shield or the suboptimal choice of going to retrieve his shield and leaving a comrade to suffer. The 4E defender was able to come to the aid of his ally (his role as defender) while still able to do so effectively because of his choice in powers.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 18, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And why do the PCs just sit around doing nothing when there is no ventilation shaft? This sounds more like a player problem to me where they expect the DM to hand them everything on a silver platter instead of thinking of something for themselves which takes the actual situation into account.




Such as?

Seriously, what would you expect the players to do after they had been bolted into a windowless room?

What would you do?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 18, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> One thing which confuses me about this system is, can the skill challenge system merge with the standard encounter system?
> 
> Lots of people have said things like, "Oh, cool! If he runs into the sewers, he can fight CHUDs!"
> 
> ...



That's an interesting question. 

I don't know if there is anything "concrete" about it. But maybe it ties in with quest mechanics and the encounter building guidelines. 

Something I just came up with: 
A skill challenge is basically a quest with associated XP.
Characters roll their checks. If they make the required successes and not to many failures, they "absolve" it perfecly and get out without any fight.
If they roll well enough, there might be some drawbacks at a later time.
If they fail, the guards will catch onto them and a full-blown combat encounter ensues. The encounter XP cost would be approximated by the quests XP. 
If we assume the group needs 6 successes, it gets the full XP for the quest. For each "missing" success, they lose out on a proportional amount of XP. 
If we assume the group needs 4 failures to fail, they, they have to beat an encounter worth an proportional amount of XP - which is deducted from their quest XP. When this encounter happens depends on the nature of the challenge. 
The encounter can be a skill challenge again, if it doesn't make sense if this results in a combat. The XP "debt" of the PCs might be added to a later combat encounter (maybe the guards are preparing an ambush for the Sembia Escapees. If the group failed, some of the guards that were on their tail the last time might still be on their tails and aid the ambushees...)

Interesting question might be what you do if a player wants to have a short combat as part of the challenge (escaping the guards - beat down the last two between him and freedom, or to help the others?). 

I don't believe though - whatever you do - that's always guaranteed by this system that only some of the characters enjoy the spotlight during one encounter. The system can help to avoid some pitfalls here, but make it fully impossible - I don't see it yet...


----------



## iskurthi (Mar 19, 2008)

*Greyhawk the gift pack!*



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.
> 
> That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.




In 3e, it would be a method to let people who've invested a lot of points in a skill really show off, even if that skill doesn't seem to be immediately applicable - letting a feature of someone's character drive the action can never be all that bad. Depending on how well it's all spelled out, this may be one of the things that should be looted off of 4e when we're beating it up in an alley and taking its stuff.


----------



## Li Shenron (Mar 19, 2008)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> I agree. It's a DM-ing style thing. However, if 4e offers better guidelines for this sort of thing, then it's an improvement.




Absolutely.



			
				ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> That said, I almost think that the 3e skill system is more interesting to use with this style of play. When everyone has similar skill sets and bonuses and a broadened skill list (as in SWSE/4e), there's likely a bit of a sameness problem in terms of using x skill to deal with y situation. It's kinda neat for someone to work creatively with their limited skill set to accomplish a particular goal.




That is in fact the weird reason why in my group we are still more fond of the 3.0 skills than the 3.5 skills (they are almost the same, but in 3.5 you just get more for your bucks). 

Finding yourself (the whole group) without one skill that would be useful is not that tragic, when it forces you to think about an alternative way to beat the challenge.

The only case when it's a bit frustrating is with move silently, when the group needs to stick together and the worst comrade can spoil it all.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 19, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Such as?
> 
> Seriously, what would you expect the players to do after they had been bolted into a windowless room?
> 
> What would you do?




Well, assuming they are being held captive, they could:

1) have one of them fake an illness/heart attack and try to overpower whoever comes to check on them

2) try to bribe one of their guards

3) use magic to signal someone outside who  could bust them out

All of these options are considerably less trite than a player just inventing a laundry chute in a prison cell.  They also leave the narrative responsibility in the hands of the DM, where I think it belongs in D&D.

Ken


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2008)

satori01 said:
			
		

> "Yes You Can" is a great game philosophy especially as it applies to skills.  One of the worst things about 3.X is so many of the skills have easily forgotten rules and specific rules....Jump & Hide I am looking at you.
> 
> I Like that skill should be broadened.  A single History check, as opposed to one posters suggestion that the History check should give a bonus on a Knowledge local check.  Specifiably detailing every aspect of a skill can lead to rigid thinking, and frankly some redundancy,



I don't see a problem with some redundancy from skills. A little overlap is not a bad thing. It allows two characters to arrive at the same solution drawing on knowledge appropriate to the character background.



> does one truly need Spellcraft and Arcana. ....pretty much a character if they have one, will have the other.



As far as I am concered, yes, one does need both skills.  Just because one knows about things like dragons, constructs and magical beasts does not mean they know anything about the things coverd by spellcraft. Ymmv.




> Yet in 3.5 you pretty much have to play a rogue to get Use Rope, Balance, Climb.



Not if your DM uses customizing a charater from the PHB (p.94/3.0 , p.110/3.5).


----------



## apoptosis (Mar 19, 2008)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> I find some players really enjoy this, but most players don't like it. In my experience. They want to believe the world exists, is real. Not just something you made up. Letting them make part of it up damages this. In some cases, destroys it.




Strangely I have experienced the opposite. Once players start playing in games that allow this mechanically, they hate playing games that dont let you do it.


----------



## Greg K (Mar 19, 2008)

i accidently deleted the folllowing from my post.


			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> would it not be safe to say the Profession Sailor: pretty much allows for
> knowledge and use of ropes, balance, and sailing terms.




 I think some broad skills are in order. I personally allow Handle Animal to Appraise the quality of horses, Armor smithing to appraise the quality of weapons, etc.  However, this is also in the DMG as an option.   
I even went as far as creating a Knowledge (culture) skill in my games. It covers things like  social  mores, laws, traditions, popular games, cultural history and common religious knowledge and practices for a specific culture.   However, each culture has to be developed seperately.  You normally will not know who the mayor of the local city, who the local blacksmith, the members of the local guild,  local crime bosses etc. which will be Knowledge (local) (or possibly Streetwise).  It will not provide a broad knowledge of history or religions that covers multiple cultures or mult that one would receive from the Knowledge (History) and Knowledge (Religion) skills will give respectively. It also will not give reallly indepth knowledge of a religious practitioner just access to what the common person would know.








.


----------



## MaelStorm (Mar 19, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> I agree. There has been so much talk about how awesome 4E will be that I am actually turned off by all this promises. They should show some mechanics instead of always repeating the same thing over and over again.



Agreed


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 19, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Well, assuming they are being held captive, they could:
> 
> 1) have one of them fake an illness/heart attack and try to overpower whoever comes to check on them
> 
> ...




How are any of your examples less trite than asking if there is a ventilation shaft (sorry now it's a implausible laundry chute that 'magically appears')?

*trite* adj - "lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale"

All of your examples are just as trite as the ventilation shaft as all four examples have been portrayed in various media.

The point of the article was to ne flexible and work with player's solutions to problems to make the game more interesting for the player. Some DMs here seem to take it personally when it is suggested that the players may actually have good story ideas too.  

Edit: And if you let the players join in the creative process you are more likely to discover ideas that are not trite.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 19, 2008)

Perhaps I could have used a better adjective than 'Trite', since the definition you point out wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey.

In an RPG my suspension of disbelief can only go so far.  I find the idea that someone could make a History check or whatever to find a passage out of their prison cell just too hard to believe.  

Also, you and I have a fundamental disagreement over whether it's a good thing for the PCs to take over the narrative.   In my opinion, the game is most fun when the players assume control over their characters actions, and the GM keeps control of what the world is like.

The problem with players taking narrative control is that there aren't any good boundaries for how far that control should go.  Can the player use his History check to find a sewer entrance?  OK, if that works, how about finding a loaded crossbow in a barrel?  Or a treasure chest?  I just disagree with the whole approach to roleplaying;  I rejected it in my games in the 80s and 90s when the Storyteller system came into vogue, and I reject it now.  It isn't fun for me; nor is it for the friends I have grown up playing RPGs with over the years.

When the PCs get captured, having the game stay fun does demand that they find a way to escape, since it isn't fun to roleplay staying in a prison cell for years on end.  But I think that  there are lots of ways to have that happen that are a lot more believable than just finding a secret passage leading out of your cell because you're a great historian.  

Bribing a guard, for example.  You're right that I shouldn't have used the word 'trite', because the truth is, we do see this in media a lot.  But we see it in films and TV shows precisely because it's believable;   it's more believeable in '24', for example, for Jack Bauer to overpower his guard by feigning illness, or bribe him, or be rescued by his friends, than for Jack Bauer to find a secret passage leading out of his prison cell.

But let's take this example ;  bribing the guard .  In my opinion, it should require one of a few specific skills (Bluff, or Diplomacy, for example).  It isn't a good idea for the DM to let someone use their 'History' skill to bribe the guard.  

I suppose some player could say that he used his History skill to remember that a distinguishing characteristic of the guard's face meant that he was a member of a family/clan that had been ancient allies of the PC.  

But that would be a poor thing for the DM to allow, because allowing a PC to become a 'one-trick skill pony' diminishes the role of the skill system, devaluing the choice that the rogue made, for example, when he took a class that offered less combat power and more skill choices, rather than just playing an 8 INT Fighter and putting all his skill points into History. When you're thrown into prison, it should be good time to be a Rogue.

Ken





			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> How are any of your examples less trite than asking if there is a ventilation shaft (sorry now it's a implausible laundry chute that 'magically appears')?
> 
> *trite* adj - "lacking in freshness or effectiveness because of constant use or excessive repetition; hackneyed; stale"
> 
> ...


----------



## Mouseferatu (Mar 19, 2008)

Just to reiterate a point that's been mentioned (and apparently missed) multiple times...

The DM still has the option to decide that a certain skill is simply not appropriate to a given challenge. If the PCs are in a cell in a kingdom they've never heard of, obviously a History check won't help them find a way out.

The system _encourages_ the DM to accept unorthodox and creative solutions, but it doesn't _mandate_ that every idea a PC tries has to work.


----------



## Surgoshan (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> The problem with players taking narrative control is that there aren't any good boundaries for how far that control should go.  Can the player use his History check to find a sewer entrance?  OK, if that works, how about finding a loaded crossbow in a barrel?  Or a treasure chest?




Do you really not see the difference between those examples?  Being well-versed in history can plausibly allow you to remember a mostly forgotten and unused system of tunnels under a city.  Being well-versed in history won't let you remember that Tom the Adventuresome Baker left a crossbow in a barrel while being seduced by Rachel the Slutty Apple-Seller last week.

One allows for narrative excitement and expands on the world in a way you hadn't already thought of.  The second is just the players attempting to break the game in a way the DM obviously shouldn't allow.  In a similar fashion, a player shouldn't be able to leap over a 40 foot wall just because he rolled a 20 on an untrained skill check.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

To me, all three are implausible , with the second and third example becoming progressively more so.  You are actually illustrating my point -- that the problem with ceding narrative control to the players is that no one will agree on where the line between plausible and implausible will lie.   I prefer having one person (the DM) who constructs a narrative description of the world, for that reason.

Ken


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

As an aside, if you were going to implement the PC getting lucky and finding a previously unknown sewer entrance, I think an actual luck mechanic would be in order.  In an eberron game  you could use an action point for this -- I think it would be appropriate to use a scarce, not easily renewed resource to implement someone getting so unbelievablly lucky as to have the sewer entrance present itself in the dead end alley just as they need it.

In 4E, since action points renew themselves at the end of every encounter, I don't think this would work.

Ken


----------



## hong (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> To me, all three are implausible , with the second and third example becoming progressively more so.  You are actually illustrating my point -- that the problem with ceding narrative control to the players is that no one will agree on where the line between plausible and implausible will lie.   I prefer having one person (the DM) who constructs a narrative description of the world, for that reason.




Nothing about this system implies that the DM doesn't retain veto power. If you think something is dumb, you can say so.


----------



## Oldtimer (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> In 4E, since action points renew themselves at the end of every encounter,



No, they don't.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

OK, I stand corrected.  When can one recover an action point in 4E?

Ken


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> OK, I stand corrected.  When can one recover an action point in 4E?
> 
> Ken




You start each day with one and gain another after each milestone (two encounters). Taking an extended rest resets your action points to one.


----------



## keterys (Mar 20, 2008)

'About every two encounters' - you can set milestones as appropriate.


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> OK, I stand corrected.  When can one recover an action point in 4E?



Basically, they renew every other encounter.  You get one when you wake up in the morning, and when you complete your second encounter of the day you get another.  Same if/when you complete a fourth.  You can only spend one action point per encounter.

In order to spend 2 action points in a day, you would then have to have three encounters.  But since the game is no longer on a "four encounters per day for balance reasons" schedule, that will only happen when story reasons demand.

That being said, I agree that there's no real point in using action points as a "spend an action point to take momentary narrative control" resource.  If a player wanted to, say, use a Search check to try to find a sewer entrance in what otherwise would be a dead end alley, I'd do as follows:

1: Decide whether it is plausible and appropriate for a sewer to be located in this place.
2: If no, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check.  No matter the outcome, no sewer is found.
3: If yes, tell the player to roll the die for a Search check.  If the player rolls high, a sewer is found.  If the player rolls low, no sewer is found.

Lets say I decide "yes," and the player rolls low.  Later, they come back and search in their spare time, when they can take 20.  I still would keep for myself the option of not having a sewer entrance be found.

Until the sewer entrance is found, or conclusively proven not to exist, it exists in an indeterminate state.

This is how I do things in 3e, and its how 4e seems to do things.  I really don't see the problem.


----------



## apoptosis (Mar 20, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Basically, they renew every other encounter.  You get one when you wake up in the morning, and when you complete your second encounter of the day you get another.  Same if/when you complete a fourth.  You can only spend one action point per encounter.
> 
> In order to spend 2 action points in a day, you would then have to have three encounters.  But since the game is no longer on a "four encounters per day for balance reasons" schedule, that will only happen when story reasons demand.
> 
> ...




I find using an action point to take narrative control by far the most interesting use of action points.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> As an aside, if you were going to implement the PC getting lucky and finding a previously unknown sewer entrance, I think an actual luck mechanic would be in order.  In an eberron game  you could use an action point for this -- I think it would be appropriate to use a scarce, not easily renewed resource to implement someone getting so unbelievablly lucky as to have the sewer entrance present itself in the dead end alley just as they need it.
> 
> In 4E, since action points renew themselves at the end of every encounter, I don't think this would work.
> 
> Ken



 So your players can only find smoething you described when they first entered the dead end alley?

DM: you get into a dead end alley. Make a spot check.
P: 23
DM: you see a wall which you think you are able to climb up...

wow, that´s fun...
... sounds like a computer game to me...

What is wrong with:

P: Are there any sewers under the city?
DM: Maybe
P: Do I know it? I have streetwise trained!

Or
P: Are there any sewers under the city?
DM: Maybe
P: I know about the history of this city. Do i know if there was a sewer system build to prevent epidemics?

Preferably you should ask the player what skill he wants to try, before he even gets into that dead end. If you know the city, you don´t get into dead ends.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Mar 20, 2008)

Well, unless the DM wants the players in a dead end. But at that point, it's not a question of what skills the PCs have or not.

I'm not sure we should be designing adventures that test whether or not PCs have a certain skill. If there are going to be play restrictions on character creation, they should be out in the open, not enforced after the fact through punishment and reward.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Well, unless the DM wants the players in a dead end. But at that point, it's not a question of what skills the PCs have or not.
> 
> I'm not sure we should be designing adventures that test whether or not PCs have a certain skill. If there are going to be play restrictions on character creation, they should be out in the open, not enforced after the fact through punishment and reward.




So, you aren't going to have any cliffs that need climbing (rewarding those that can climb and punishing those that cannot), or ancient texts that need reading, or narrow beams that one must balance on to cross, or sneaking enemies that might be spotted?  All of those elements test whether or not PCs have a certain skill.

Or, we could open up the skill system a bit and give classes more skill points, so that players could choose to develop skills when they go up levels if they thought they would be useful.

Since I come from a background of playing RuneQuest for 15 years or so, where virtually everything a PC does is mediated by a skill (including attacking with a sword and casting some spells), I'm comfortable with adventures that test whether PCs have or don't have a certain skill.

Ken


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> So, you aren't going to have any cliffs that need climbing (rewarding those that can climb and punishing those that cannot), or ancient texts that need reading, or narrow beams that one must balance on to cross, or sneaking enemies that might be spotted?  All of those elements test whether or not PCs have a certain skill.




If any of the above bring the story to a halt, then no, I will not have any of those elements. I will come up with multiple solutions. All that is being said in this thread is that if the players come up with a *good, plausible* solution that you hadn't planned for, you should try to work that idea in by saying 'yes' instead of always saying 'no.'


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If any of the above bring the story to a halt, then no, I will not have any of those elements. I will come up with multiple solutions. All that is being said in this thread is that if the players come up with a *good, plausible* solution that you hadn't planned for, you should try to work that idea in by saying 'yes' instead of always saying 'no.'




How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt?  Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?  

I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement.  In my ideal game, there isn't a single story that the GM designs and the PCs participate in.  Rather, the GM details a setting that the PCs can interact with , and the story emerges from their actions.

If there's a single story that has to happen, then yeah, I can see how you'd have a problem with a PC's lack of a particular skill getting in the way of telling it.  But that's not how I prefer to play D&D.

Ken


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt?  Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?
> 
> I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement.  In my ideal game, there isn't a single story that the GM designs and the PCs participate in.  Rather, the GM details a setting that the PCs can interact with , and the story emerges from their actions.
> 
> ...




It brings the story to a halt if you back them into a deadend (literally or figuratively) with only one solution that you have devised for them to 'escape.'

You can't condemn the guidelines set out in this thread just because they don't match your playstyle, no more than I could condemn your playstyle as being the 'wrong' way to play.

But I would feel safe to say that many people's games do have a story in mind. See the popularity of various companies' adventure paths. If you wrote a junction in one of these adventure paths that required the PCs to have the Decipher Script skill to continue, if non of the characters have the skill, then the whole adventure path goes down the tubes.

Most good adventures are not written with one solution, but many are written with the limited solutions developed by the writer. All this threads posits is that a DM should be open to player ideas that the author/DM had not thought of.

If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

"If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle."

I don't want 4E to change D&D in a way that's bad for my playstyle.  Other people are happy that D&D is changing in a way that supports _their_ playstyle.

Neither one of us is irrational for feeling the way we do, or for making our points.

Ken


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> How does the failure of the PCs to accomplish some goal bring 'the story' to a halt?  Isn't the story the tale of the PC's actions?
> 
> I think there might be a difference in play style that explains our disagreement.



No, its not.

Skill challenges sometimes function as gateways, where, if the party wants to get to the rest of the adventure, they MUST have a certain amount of ranks in a particular skill.  I've always referred to these as "gateways," and to the thing you need to have to pass the gateway as the "key."  It is generally not a good idea to create a gateway in your campaign to which the party literally cannot obtain the key.  Not unless you really mean to create a wall.

You basically cannot hide behind "I just created the world, what you do in it is up to you" when you dangle a plot hook in front of the players, and once they bite, inform them that, no, it turns out THAT plot hook was only available to parties with a Paladin, or to parties with one character wtih at least +15 in Disable Device, or to parties where someone can cast Plane Shift.  You created the situation, you created the need for the key, you knew the party didn't have the key, you control the party's access to alternative keys, you control everything.  Sandbox play is great and all, but its still *your* sandbox.


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> "If it comes down to play style preferences, then I don't really understand why you're arguing against something that many in this thread think is a good idea for their playstyle."
> 
> I don't want 4E to change D&D in a way that's bad for my playstyle.  Other people are happy that D&D is changing in a way that supports _their_ playstyle.
> 
> ...




But one point you seem to ignore is that as DM you can continue to say 'no' all you want. So your playstyle is safe and sound.


----------



## Praeden (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> Perhaps I could have used a better adjective than 'Trite', since the definition you point out wasn't exactly what I was trying to convey.
> 
> In an RPG my suspension of disbelief can only go so far.  I find the idea that someone could make a History check or whatever to find a passage out of their prison cell just too hard to believe.




So you, as the DM, veto the idea.  I happen to agree, because unless the secret passage was on an ancient map, or had played some significant role in history, there would be absolutely no reason for History to be appropriate in that situation, even if it was decided that such a passage did in fact exist.

Just to quote from the blog that is behind this controversy:

"...the default assumption in 4th Edition is that players should and will find creative solutions to problems, and the rules are designed not only to allow the DM to fairly adjudicate those assumptions but also to reward players for doing so."

First, notice the reference to DM adjudication.  

Second, I don't think we should automatically assume that it means "reward players for holding up their character sheets and pointing to their best skill".  It seems more likely that they mean "reward players for coming up with a clever, plausible plan".





			
				Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> The problem with players taking narrative control is that there aren't any good boundaries for how far that control should go.  Can the player use his History check to find a sewer entrance?  OK, if that works, how about finding a loaded crossbow in a barrel?  Or a treasure chest?  I just disagree with the whole approach to roleplaying;  I rejected it in my games in the 80s and 90s when the Storyteller system came into vogue, and I reject it now.  It isn't fun for me; nor is it for the friends I have grown up playing RPGs with over the years.




So there's no problem is there?  You and your players are in agreement.

Without seeing the encounter decribed in the blog, we don't even know if the sewer had been written in already.  This was a encounter designed to showcase the skill system, so it's actually quite reasonable to assume that it had.  In which case, there's no problem.






> When the PCs get captured, having the game stay fun does demand that they find a way to escape, since it isn't fun to roleplay staying in a prison cell for years on end.  But I think that  there are lots of ways to have that happen that are a lot more believable than just finding a secret passage leading out of your cell because you're a great historian.




Yes, and I suspect that most people, including the people who wrote the 4E rulebooks, would agree with you.

Mouseferatu has said in this thread that the DM still gets to make these kinds of judgement calls - and unlike us, he has seen the entire rules system.

In fact, I'd bet that there's actually a passage in the DMG which says something equivalent to your statement above.




> Bribing a guard, for example.  You're right that I shouldn't have used the word 'trite', because the truth is, we do see this in media a lot.  But we see it in films and TV shows precisely because it's believable;   it's more believeable in '24', for example, for Jack Bauer to overpower his guard by feigning illness, or bribe him, or be rescued by his friends, than for Jack Bauer to find a secret passage leading out of his prison cell.
> 
> But let's take this example ;  bribing the guard .  In my opinion, it should require one of a few specific skills (Bluff, or Diplomacy, for example).  It isn't a good idea for the DM to let someone use their 'History' skill to bribe the guard.




There you are then.  Once again, you've demonstrated how the 4E skill system can be sensibly handled.  It's not exactly rocket science - why assume, on the strength of an ambiguous blog entry, that professional game designers would throw away basic common sense ?


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 20, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Otherwise, you can remove the GM and play a round-robin freeform storytelling session.  What else should the players be doing?  Deciding the composition of an encounter ("I made my History check and remembered there are no Ogres in these hills, only Kobold Minions")?  Determining the placement of traps ("My Dungeoneering roll tells me the walls are too thick to have a spear trap there")?



Slippery slope FTW!


----------



## Fifth Element (Mar 20, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> They should [do something else] instead of always repeating the same thing over and over again.



Oh, the delicious irony.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

There's nothing to stop a party without +15 in disable device from:

1) coming back later after the rogue studies disable device some more

2) hiring an NPC to come disable the device for them.

I think it makes the world more believable and interesting when there are some challenges that have to be met by asking others for help, or waiting for another day.  I don't think that every path has to be navigable to its end by anyone , all the time.

Ken



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> No, its not.
> 
> Skill challenges sometimes function as gateways, where, if the party wants to get to the rest of the adventure, they MUST have a certain amount of ranks in a particular skill.  I've always referred to these as "gateways," and to the thing you need to have to pass the gateway as the "key."  It is generally not a good idea to create a gateway in your campaign to which the party literally cannot obtain the key.  Not unless you really mean to create a wall.
> 
> You basically cannot hide behind "I just created the world, what you do in it is up to you" when you dangle a plot hook in front of the players, and once they bite, inform them that, no, it turns out THAT plot hook was only available to parties with a Paladin, or to parties with one character wtih at least +15 in Disable Device, or to parties where someone can cast Plane Shift.  You created the situation, you created the need for the key, you knew the party didn't have the key, you control the party's access to alternative keys, you control everything.  Sandbox play is great and all, but its still *your* sandbox.


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> But one point you seem to ignore is that as DM you can continue to say 'no' all you want. So your playstyle is safe and sound.




I realize I can say no.  But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.  

Ken


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 20, 2008)

By the way, Defiler, you make good points that I mostly agree with.  


I think what set me off about the blog was the specific example (making a history check to find a sewer entrance).  That, and the idea that the sewer system _didn't_ exist apriori, and that the player essentially took narrative control and invented it with his successful history check.


I am fine with creative use of skills.   If the 4E rules don't in fact depart from 3E in terms of how much narrative control they give to players, I won't have a problem.

Ken


----------



## shilsen (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think what set me off about the blog was the specific example (making a history check to find a sewer entrance).  That, and the idea that the sewer system _didn't_ exist apriori, and that the player essentially took narrative control and invented it with his successful history check.




You do realize that this is a D&D game, referring to a fictional universe, where _nothing_ exists a priori (or a posteriori, for that matter).


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 20, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I realize I can say no.  But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.
> 
> Ken




No. Why would you think you would have to say no nore often? Because the rules will encourage the players to come up with creative solutions? Would you rather the players not try to think outside the box? Do your 3E players come up with ideas outside the ones you have planned now? Or have you taken the opposite approach 4E is suggesting and discouraged them from creative thinking?


----------



## Cadfan (Mar 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> There's nothing to stop a party without +15 in disable device from:
> 
> 1) coming back later after the rogue studies disable device some more
> 
> ...



Can we not debate the hypothetical?  I know that YOU know that it is entirely possible for a DM to put the party in a situation where they literally cannot achieve a particular challenge.  I specifically avoided giving precise examples because I knew we'd just bog down in a discussion of "But the PCs could fix the problem with X!" "But what if X isn't available for plot reasons?" "But they could use Y!" "But what if Y isn't available for plot reasons?"  etc, etc, etc, blah blah blah.

You know that sometimes the party can end up in situations where they cannot progress due to skill point allocation, or spell choice, or whichever.  You know that the DM can avoid this with skillful DMing.  Lets not pretend otherwise.

All people are saying is that when these things happen, it is lame.  1/2 skill ranks and a system that encourages creative problem solving will reduce the frequency with which that happens.

At the absolute very least, it will reduce the frequency of lame moments where the party realizes that one character didn't allocate any ranks to Ride, and a particular cool scenario can no longer happen.


> I realize I can say no. But the new guidelines mean I will have to say no a lot more often in 4E than I had to in 3E.



Creativity is bad because sometimes it means people come up with poor ideas?

I think you've lost track of your point.  You proclaim to like alternative solutions, but the more alternative solutions are possible within the ruleset, the more often you will have to decide whether to allow them to work.  IE, the more often you will have to say no.


----------



## bmcdaniel (Mar 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> If there's a single story that has to happen, then yeah, I can see how you'd have a problem with a PC's lack of a particular skill getting in the way of telling it.  But that's not how I prefer to play D&D.




Aren't you a big fan of Paizo's Adventure Paths? Almost by definition, these are "single stories" that have to happen.  They certainly are fairly "railroad"-y (and I say this as a fan myself).

BMM


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 21, 2008)

I've said this in previous posts, but I'll say it one more time.  

I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example) .  That isn't the kind of game I want to play.

If in fact the PHB talks about doing this, then when new players join my game they're going to expect this, and I'm going to have to say 'no' more than I would in a system where the PHB doesn't talk about doing this.

Ken



			
				Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> No. Why would you think you would have to say no nore often? Because the rules will encourage the players to come up with creative solutions? Would you rather the players not try to think outside the box? Do your 3E players come up with ideas outside the ones you have planned now? Or have you taken the opposite approach 4E is suggesting and discouraged them from creative thinking?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Mar 21, 2008)

bmcdaniel said:
			
		

> Aren't you a big fan of Paizo's Adventure Paths? Almost by definition, these are "single stories" that have to happen.  They certainly are fairly "railroad"-y (and I say this as a fan myself).
> 
> BMM





Yes, bmcdaniel, I am, as you well know ;-)

However, I consider their single story nature to be a weakness, not a strength.   I think I would like them better if they were less railroady.    But they're so good in other ways that I just try to deal with it.

Ken


----------



## Vyvyan Basterd (Mar 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I've said this in previous posts, but I'll say it one more time.
> 
> I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example) .  That isn't the kind of game I want to play.
> 
> ...




I think you are envisioning the PHB and the circumstance of the DDXP example incorrectly.

The player at DDXP did not invent the sewer system. The adventure was most likely silent to the existance of an old sewer system. The player most likely asked something to the following effect:

"Using my History skill, do I know if there are any old sewer systems that I could use to escape the city?"

The DM at that table, after the character made a successful check, had to decide if there was a sewer system. The DM invented the sewer system when he said 'yes.'

The blog post does not suggest the players should be able to create things that were established not to exist, but instead for the DM to be open to player ideas about unestablished things.

If you don't enjoy ad-libbing events that you as DM have not created yourself, then this advice will not appeal to you.


----------



## FireLance (Mar 21, 2008)

Vyvyan Basterd said:
			
		

> If you don't enjoy ad-libbing events that you as DM have not created yourself, then this advice will not appeal to you.



Exactly. As I mentioned in another thread, 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), e.g. if he succeeded at a Knowledge (History) check, he will know that there was a sewer that led to a forgotten escape route from the city. 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.

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.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2008)

Heh, y'know, I remember doing exactly this sort of thing in the old 007 rpg back in the 80's.  Had an absolute blast with it.  



> 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.




You mean... no... could it be?  4e is not the computerization of D&D?


----------



## hong (Mar 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> There's nothing to stop a party without +15 in disable device from:
> 
> 1) coming back later after the rogue studies disable device some more
> 
> ...




"I use History to find an NPC to tell us more about this thing!" is a fine way for PCs to meet a skill challenge.


----------



## Hussar (Mar 21, 2008)

I think the major issue here is a play expectation one.  I don't think the rules are going to suggest that a skill contest should look like this:

DM:  You find a locked door.
Player:  I use my history skill to open it.
DM:  It opens.

That's most certainly not what should be happening at the table.  It's not like 3e skills where you simply use the right skill to do that task and then roll a pass/fail (or bypass the roll and take 20).  The new rules are going to encourage players to state beforehand how their skill is going to apply to the following situation.  So, as Hong says, the player could use his History skill to engage with the setting, or he could try something wonkier, but, what he can't do is just name any skill and assume it will possibly work.


----------



## Syrsuro (Mar 21, 2008)

There are those who think it is only a good idea if they, as DM, thought of it first ("I didn't put a ventilation shaft in that room/ sewer grate in that ally - so there isn't one there") and there are those who think that anyone at the table is capable of coming up with a good idea ("I didn't think to put a ventilation shaft in that room/ sewer grate in that ally, but - hey - that's a good idea!").

It may not always be about ego, but certainly in many cases it sounds like it might be.

Personally - I like any system that increases player buy-in, and think that this is a great idea.  Rather than simply looking forward to 4E, I am trying to come up with ways to rethink skill-based challenges in my 3.5 game.

Of course, one of the things I like about it is that it encourages creative problem solving by the players - and creative problem solving does _not _ mean, imho, "anything goes".  It means that if you can come up with an idea that sounds reasonable - even if its something that hadn't already occured to me - it might be worth trying.  But, and this is where the strawmen start to show up in some other posts, _it has to make sense_.  If the player's idea doesn't make sense, it isn't going to succeed, no matter how high he/she rolls.


Will I say "Yes" to every idea they come up with?  Doubtful.  (It's not necessarily a good idea to put ventilation shafts in a prison cell, and if they are there, maybe they are blocked with bars).

But those ideas that are plausible, _even those I didn't think of first_?  Why not?

Carl


----------



## FireLance (Mar 21, 2008)

Syrsuro said:
			
		

> But, and this is where the strawmen start to show up in some other posts, _it has to make sense_.  If the player's idea doesn't make sense, it isn't going to succeed, no matter how high he/she rolls.



I think it's best to assume that the DM is at least as capable of identifying a plausible idea _during_ the game as he is _before_ the game. In other words, the kind of DM that would allow a player to use a History check to open a door would be the kind of DM to have placed a door that could be opened with a History check in his adventure _if he had thought of it first_.


----------



## Syrsuro (Mar 21, 2008)

> FireLance Quote:
> 
> I think it's best to assume that the DM is at least as capable of identifying a plausible idea during the game as he is before the game. In other words, the kind of DM that would allow a player to use a History check to open a door would be the kind of DM to have placed a door that could be opened with a History check in his adventure if he had thought of it first.




Aye.  But its that 'if he had thought of it first' that is the key.

I've been DMing (off and on) for nearly thirty years (Wow, has it really been that long?) and I wouldn't presume to think I had come up with every 'plausible' idea for a given situation.  So why should those ideas I happened to think of first automatically be 'the right answer' and all those I didn't happen to think of first be 'the wrong answer'.  

Unless the name of the game is really 'second guess the DM'.

Carl


----------



## Mallus (Mar 21, 2008)

Haffrung Helleyes said:
			
		

> I think I'll have to say 'no' more often because from the blog post I read, I think that 4E is going to enshrine a playstyle where players join in framing the narrative (inventing a sewer system for the city on the spot based on a player's suggestion, for example)



But can't you imagine situations where the DM has failed to completely conceive of the situation, where they 'left something out by mistake', where they failed to take into account some logical and obvious things. In short, when the DM _goofed_, and the player's suggestion describes a more realistic, or versimilar --hmmm, that isn't really a word, is it?-- world?

Happens to me all the time as DM. That's why I welcome our new (more) distributed narrative authority masters. I find the idea that the DM isn't wholly responsible for making the environment make sense to be a relief.


----------

