My first impressions with 4E and a lot of questions

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
lol		#41	[-]
Posts: 46 (05/11/09 05:55:01) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I've dealt with Skill Challenges as a DM, and also as a player, and to be completely honest, I don't like them very much. Don't get me wrong; I understand how to use them, and I like the concept very much, but my experience has been that they feel really ponderous when placed in an actual game. The first time I used one as a DM, it involved the players navigating an ancient swamp in search of a ruined fortress. Players could use skills like Athletics (climb a tree and see if they're headed in the right direction, perhaps), Endurance (trudge through the swamp directly?), Heal (to avoid poisonous plants, maybe), Stealth (to scout the area up ahead), Perception (to check for goblin tracks), History (to see if they could recall any learned information about the area from before it was swampland), Nature (check and see from which direction the moss is growing, maybe?), Arcana (the ruined fortress is full of dark magics, and perhaps those trained in sensing such things might be able to help discern its general location), etc, etc etc. I really tried my best to cover all my bases; I even went as far as to say that players could only use certain skills once per Skill Challenge, and I made the DC of the Endurance check raise slightly each time it was used, to simulate the fact that it gets harder to keep going when you're forcing yourself to move. All in all, I didn't really like it. And I don't think the players liked it much either. The main issue, I think, is that it's a situation that could have simply been roleplayed through. Odds are, if the players in 3e had been asked to trudge through a swamp in search of a fortress, they'd still use all those same skills, but their actions wouldn't be confined to the mechanics of a skill challenge. I recently picked up the Open Grave book, and in it, there's a sample skill challenge where the PCs have to cross through a land controlled by a vampire dutchess. The skill challenge states that it's meant to be implemented over a series of days or weeks. The PCs can use skills like Diplomacy (to win over the local townspeople, who have no love for the evil dutchess, and might be willing to help them), Stealth (to avoid undead patrols), Endurance (to "rough it" through a thick forest, where they'll encounter an old hermit who loved the Dutchess while she was alive - he reveals that dropping his name to her, if they're captured, might be beneficial, providing a bonus to Diplomacy checks against her), Heal (to set a village boy's leg or something, so he'll scout ahead for you), etc, etc, etc. The issue here, again, is that this is entirely unnecessary. All of this stuff could be RP'd out; when the PCs arive in town, they might decide to use Diplomacy to try and win over the locals on their own, without having been forced to use the skill by the challenge. They might also decide, on their own, that heading up into the forests to avoid patrols might be a good idea - and once they're in there, the DM could describe everything that's happened and ask for Endurance checks only if they apply to the situation, instead of simply because the skill challenge calls for an Endurance check if they enter the forest. I'm sure a lot of people have had success with them, but I think they're entirely inane 90% of the time. lol. ...d%.....Behavior 01-40.....Agrees with a previous poster (subtract 1d8 from current post number to determine target). 41-60.....Disagrees with a previous poster (subtract 1d8 from current post number to determine target). 61-90.....Posts one line of vaguely amusing sarcasm, contributing little to the topic. 91-95.....Posts 1d3 paragraphs of original and relevant ideas or information. 96-00.....Roll again twice.
madfox		#42	[-]
Posts: 6919 (05/11/09 05:56:08) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	You are really sticking to the letter of the words Zaraky. The RAW note that ultimately the actions of the PCs are unpredictable, and that running a skill challenge requires flexibility from the DM as well as some wits to change scenes depending on the dice rolls. For example, if you succeed at that Athletics check your PC catches up with thief. It is a dense crowd though, and since the rest of your team is nowhere near, the thief still manages to slip away. You might be fast enough, but without the aid of your fellow adventurers you cannot stop him. And no, you cannot start using force, simply because the Athletics check in itself was not enough to get close enough to grab him. For that to happen, your fellow adventures needed to be able to help you. As for your saying that it could just as well be represented by 1 diplomacy check with bonuses based on how the PCs acted, that is exactly what is happening here, except that now a PC cannot succeed unless he garners some of those bonusses and he does not automatically fail either if he botches the last Diplomacy check as long as he has enough successes in previous scenes. So now PCs can actually succeed without a diplomancer. I find the skill challenge a much more elegant sollution. While the rules in the DMG do not expressly talk about gradient success (again: the letter), that does not mean it is not there. In fact, you could treat it all as mini-skill challenges and it is even in the RAW. Now, nobody is denying that the examples in the DMG are rather bad examples. You just seem to be missing that posters on this thread have been saying over and over again they are examples. The rules just describe that you need X successes before Y failures and that you have primary and secondary skills with an adviced DC (page 42) which a DM can move away from. NDs example fits the rules completely, it just do not fit the examples in the DMG. Madfox, who just ran a skill challenge with the PCs climbing down a canyon wall and jumping through a large waterfall to get at a cavern. The challenge started with the players discussing how to make sure the bad climbers would get down and in in 1 piece and then the good climbers made the Athletic checks, the wizard with Dungeoneering trained plotted the route (with the aid of the rogue) and the ropes made the required Athletic checks of the rest possible (and would have prevent real nasty accidents in case of failure). The scene would have run exactly the same in 3E, but now I had a set of DCs, an inkling of necessary successes and above all, a fair way to give XP for it. Last Edited By: madfox 05/11/09 07:32:32. Edited 1 times.
madfox		#43	[-]
Posts: 6920 (05/11/09 06:17:07) That's a lot of posts. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Lol, I think the main problem you are describing is that you as a DM and a player are letting the mechanics dominate the game. I have seen this happen with more DMs. Just because the rules now provide a fair non-arbitrary mechanism to (a) give xp and (b) deal with failure, does not mean you have to make the checks a bland string of rolls. Run it exactly as you would in 3E, do not mention it is a skill challenge and roll the dice against the necessary skills and DCs as it comes up through actual play. - Keep your eyes open though for what requires a check since at times it is easy to miss you need a check (e.g. going to a library does not mean you automatically find that old map). - What requires a check without bringing the PCs closer to a goal (e.g. resisting swamp fever and finding food have nothing to do with finding the ruins, just with keeping in good health). - What requires a check from just one member of the group, or that the group as a whole need to make with using the average result as the end result, or when the group as individuals need to succeed. Important: if you do make a group check do NOT describe an individual failure as a failure, except perhaps when the group as a whole fails. Furthermore, just because one PC can sneak very well, that does not mean the group as a whole can sneak past alert guards without some additional actions! - Which is a really good idea that should be rewarded with an auto-success, but be careful not to reward the player for something their characters would never be able to pull off (I most often see this happen when the diplomatic convincing player lets his stuttering low charismatic barbarian give a rousing speech). - Which actions and skills make things easier to reach the goal, but do not actually help reach that goal (these should be rare in my opion). Definitely do not try to think of uses for all skills in advance, because that is going to stimmy your creativity as a DM. Do think about scenes and situations in advance that is going to get all people involved especially in expended challenges. For example, when I ran a skill challenge with the PCs infiltrating enemy territory I purposely added moments where the PCs needed to socially interact and use arcane rituals in what was otherwise a simple wilderness track (Stealth and Nature). If this method of running the challenge results in the PCs needing less successes than you originally thought, you just reduce the xp to the right complexity. It is no different from a fight that is turns out to be really easy not because of PC actions, but because you misjudged the difficulty. The same is true when the PCs do something horrendously stupid: you can give auto-failures or even let the skill challenge fail as a whole. I really like the system, it just very hard to keep the mechanics on the background and it is really important in these non-combat encounters to this since nothing disrupts RPing and pacing more then mechanics. Last Edited By: madfox 05/11/09 06:25:16. Edited 1 times.
Carthain		#44	[-]
Posts: 13853 (05/11/09 06:23:46) Keeper of the FAQ Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	I am criticizing what's in the DMG because that is where they are published, and that's what most DM's are expected to go on. Except your reading it wrong. They lay out the basis for them, and then give examples. There's nothing that says it cannot be expanded on, or limitations can be set .. in fact, further products show us otherwise. I was looking through the undead book and it has things like you can use a skill, and you get a success if you make the check, up to X successes. So that would limit the 'skill spamming'. Yes, that's in another book, but there's nothing in the DMG that prohibits this. Second they also don't involve the party any more than 3.x did, because if the person doesn't have an applicable skill they would still probably want to not make a check. This is a bit of contention -- but in my opinion -- tough. It's a party aspect, and I make everyone make at least one check before a person can make a second check for the skill challenge. The idea is to involve everyone - as such, a properly designed skill challenge should allow for skills that everyone has. If the DM uses a skill challenge that does not use any skill trained by 1 or 2 characters, then the DM has created a problem with it. Third; this would probably be better off as a series of skill checks, all ending up in a bonus or penalty with for the final diplomacy check with the duke. Why is that better? I'll tell you why the skill challenge is better than what you proposed. It's because skill challenges are set up to be able to mimic the overall difficulty of a combat encounter, and with that you are able to give out a corresponding amount of XP. So, say the skill challenge requires 6 successes before 3 failures. That is listed as a complexity of 2, so you give out XP for it as if they had encountered 2 creatures of their level. How much XP do you award for the series of skill checks and the diplomacy check at the end? And don't just give out story XP, as 4E does that on top of what I just described. It makes for a easy & fair way to reward the players for their non-combat activities. Your right; it does give a codified way to grant experience for using skills. It's a non issue for me because I don't use experience, but even then I would consider this at best a minor plus. Except people have been asking for ways to give out XP fairly for non-combat situations for a long time in 3.x -- so 4E delivers that. Just because you wouldn't use it for such does not mean that it's not a useful aspect of the tool. If I see a thief in game and I say "I make an Athletics check to catch up to the thief and stop him," I expect to be making that check. If I succeed on the check yet don't run up to him and at least get a chance at tackling him, then what the heck was I rolling to do? It certainly wasn't to actually catch up to him. Here it seems that you're thinking on an individual basis, and not a group/teamwork basis. What you are describing is a single person trying to catch up with the thief. What the skill challenge describes is the group using their various talents to overcome & outwit & corner the thief. Sure, your athletics check lets you run towards him -- he can also run away from you. But if the rogue is also using his knowledge of city layouts (streetwise) to cut of various routes of escape, that can slow him down so that you are more likely to catch him. And if the cleric is using insight to better guess at where the thief might run to in order to direct his friends, that makes your job and the one of the rogue easier, and much more likely to catch the thief. Skill challenges are to engage the whole group, and let everyone use their own specific strengths to help out -- and not let just one person who has totally maxed out his or her skills shine. There's certainly still time for individual people to shine with skills -- but that's not the point of a skill challenge. You want the bard to do a quick Diplomacy check to let the group start the conversation (or diffuse the mistrust before battle starts)? Sure, one roll, done deal. Now the party can talk with the group to find out information, or they get attacked depending on the skill result. Skill challenges are roll lots of dice, and then let's see if you fail. That's incorrect. There is nothing in the rules limiting it to an all or nothing gambit. Granted there isn't anything that specifically calls out for your 'degrees of success' - but nothing restricting that option either. The "Discovering Secret Lore" has the failure option to possibly give them incomplete information - that's a form of partial success; it's just not called out. Carthain. "Eschew Obfuscation."
Neutronium Dragon		#45	[-]
Posts: 3945 (05/11/09 07:29:41) Help me. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Right. Since Zaraky's every response seems to be to stick his fingers in his ears and say "The DMG doesn't explicitly say you can do that, and it's not the way I like to do things anyway!" I'm out.
Zaraky		#46	[-]
Posts: 1387 (05/11/09 07:46:32) Spending some time Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Except your reading it wrong. They lay out the basis for them, and then give examples. There's nothing that says it cannot be expanded on, or limitations can be set .. in fact, further products show us otherwise. I was looking through the undead book and it has things like you can use a skill, and you get a success if you make the check, up to X successes. So that would limit the 'skill spamming'. Yes, that's in another book, but there's nothing in the DMG that prohibits this. I'm going with what's in the rulebook. Most of the examples listed (in this thread) were different in fundamental ways, not just superficially, and not just expanding. Counting mini events instead of skill rolls is a pretty big change to me. Changing the entire success/failure paradigm is another. This is a bit of contention -- but in my opinion -- tough. It's a party aspect, and I make everyone make at least one check before a person can make a second check for the skill challenge. The idea is to involve everyone - as such, a properly designed skill challenge should allow for skills that everyone has. If the DM uses a skill challenge that does not use any skill trained by 1 or 2 characters, then the DM has created a problem with it. I don't believe forcing people to roll is the proper way to get everyone involved. Rather I think that if we want everyone involved we should give incentives for those who normally wouldn't be involved to try (or allow that sometimes some party members don't have anything to contribute). If the DM is using a skill challenges so that every time someone can use a trained skill, why are we even bothering with separate skills? I'll tell you why the skill challenge is better than what you proposed. It's because skill challenges are set up to be able to mimic the overall difficulty of a combat encounter, and with that you are able to give out a corresponding amount of XP. So, say the skill challenge requires 6 successes before 3 failures. That is listed as a complexity of 2, so you give out XP for it as if they had encountered 2 creatures of their level. How much XP do you award for the series of skill checks and the diplomacy check at the end? And don't just give out story XP, as 4E does that on top of what I just described. Except people have been asking for ways to give out XP fairly for non-combat situations for a long time in 3.x -- so 4E delivers that. Just because you wouldn't use it for such does not mean that it's not a useful aspect of the tool. I did allow that codified ways of handing out experience is a minor plus. I consider it minor though because the goal of the game is to have fun, and codified ways of handling experience indirectly addresses it. It's a plus, but not a major one (at least to me, it may be a major plus for you). And yes, skill challenges make it seem more reasonable to give experience to players because they have rolled more. The other way has it's benefits as well. There are real successes and failures aside from the large one, and it resolves faster. Here it seems that you're thinking on an individual basis, and not a group/teamwork basis. What you are describing is a single person trying to catch up with the thief. What the skill challenge describes is the group using their various talents to overcome & outwit & corner the thief. Sure, your athletics check lets you run towards him -- he can also run away from you. But if the rogue is also using his knowledge of city layouts (streetwise) to cut of various routes of escape, that can slow him down so that you are more likely to catch him. And if the cleric is using insight to better guess at where the thief might run to in order to direct his friends, that makes your job and the one of the rogue easier, and much more likely to catch the thief. That's great and all, but if I wouldn't say "I make an athletics check so that I can catch up with him and possibly do something if other party members somehow do something related." I'm sure I'm making it sound worse than it is, but the fact of the matter is that if I want to catch up to the thief to stop him, and when the DM rules that despite my success I can't even make an attempt I really wonder how the heck that should be considered a success. There has also been mention of players doing really stupid things causing auto failures; since when has this been a feature? (I don't believe this was mentioned by you Carthain). That's incorrect. There is nothing in the rules limiting it to an all or nothing gambit. Granted there isn't anything that specifically calls out for your 'degrees of success' - but nothing restricting that option either. The "Discovering Secret Lore" has the failure option to possibly give them incomplete information - that's a form of partial success; it's just not called out. Except that there are no rules for anything other than an all or nothing gambit. There aren't degrees of success in the DMG, I'm evaluating what's in the DMG. You are really sticking to the letter of the words Zaraky. The RAW note that ultimately the actions of the PCs are unpredictable, and that running a skill challenge requires flexibility from the DM as well as some wits to change scenes depending on the dice rolls. I'm trying to. I'm saying that the RAW is a failure, not peoples house rules (in fact the house rules sound better than RAW to me). Whether or not modifications can make their system work is another issue. If there are modifications though then I don't consider it RAW. To be honest, the extent of modifications (in that even when defending skill challenges the examples don't use RAW) suggest to me that skill challenges by RAW are unplayable (or at least not fun), and that modifications are needed. I also took the DM needing to be flexible meaning that he should be open to PC's inventive use of skills. Now, nobody is denying that the examples in the DMG are rather bad examples. You just seem to be missing that posters on this thread have been saying over and over again they are examples. The rules just describe that you need X successes before Y failures and that you have primary and secondary skills with an adviced DC (page 42) which a DM can move away from. NDs example fits the rules completely, it just do not fit the examples in the DMG. I've been trying to show why the examples in this thread aren't following RAW as well, and showing how they divert in meaningful ways. I consider changing success/failures from meaning skill rolls to mini events to be quite a change. I also consider changing it so that it's success until failure to be another change. Not just minor changes either. The scene would have run exactly the same in 3E, but now I had a set of DCs, an inkling of necessary successes and above all, a fair way to give XP for it. You had the DC's in 3.x as well. They were probably in the skill section. I had an inkling of necessary successes (it was in the climbing seciton I believe). 3.x didn't have a way to give XP for it, so that is a nice addition. PS. Can someone give me the page number where the DC's are? I can't seem to find them (I've found it before...). Edit: ND I'm not trying to do that, sorry if you feel that way. The examples I've seen in this thread of how to use them actually look like they could work, I just felt the weren't RAW and diverged in meaningful ways (not just superficial). I explicitly said I was judging RAW as written in the DMG in the beginning. If you enjoy playing things as written then I hope you continue to have fun with it. Iron Heroes You are not your magic weapon or armor. You are not your spellbook or holy symbol. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye; then you get a new damn sword off of the next bandit you headbutt to death. Last Edited By: Zaraky 05/11/09 08:05:28. Edited 5 times.
Carthain		#47	[-]
Posts: 13855 (05/11/09 10:10:52) Keeper of the FAQ Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	That's great and all, but if I wouldn't say "I make an athletics check so that I can catch up with him and possibly do something if other party members somehow do something related." I'm sure I'm making it sound worse than it is, but the fact of the matter is that if I want to catch up to the thief to stop him, and when the DM rules that despite my success I can't even make an attempt I really wonder how the heck that should be considered a success. The problem I see with this, is that you as the player are trying to dictate what the results of your check will achieve. And since you're so strong on the skill challenges only being based on what is in the DMG, where in the PH does Athletics say that you can catch someone who is running way with a successful check? It details how to establish success when trying to climb, jump, escape from a grab, or swim. Nothing about catching up to someone. So obviously there is some judgement going on here. So why are you allowing player/DM judgement in one area, but not another? Really what you are doing is making the athletics check to try and catch the person. And in this case failure means that you won't be able to, but success just means that you are getting close (or doing better overall.) I fail to see where the requirement of only one skill check to catch someone is - especially since the skill does not determine your speed. There has also been mention of players doing really stupid things causing auto failures; since when has this been a feature? It's always been a 'feature' of D&D. The barbarian who just kicks down the next door when the other party members are not healed/ready. The thief who tries to pickpocket the wrong person in town. The wizard could cast fire-based damage spells on the fire elemental until he is out of them. It's always possible for one party member to intentionally do stuff that is stupid. Why should skill challenges be exempt of this? There aren't degrees of success in the DMG, I'm evaluating what's in the DMG. Except -- you're not. I told you about a passage in the DMG that implies the degrees of success that you want, and that nothing prohibits it. What you're doing is what ND above stated -- you're putting your fingers in your ears and saying "I can't hear you" while we're pointing you in the right direction. And we're even doing so just using the DMG. Sure, the other sources have helped to show us that it can be used in slightly different ways - but there are clues & such in the DMG if you look. Plus, there is a distinct lack of prohibition in the rules (about just about anything in this edition.) I'm saying that the RAW is a failure And I'm pretty sure most people here agree that the pedantic RAW is a failure -- because the math was off. They've since updated various numbers with an update, and since that is official, you should be sure to take those in to account. If you don't, then this discussion is really over. Once you incorporate the updates, the system becomes much more useful (because the math is much better.) I've been trying to show why the examples in this thread aren't following RAW Except when we point out to you the portions that are implied in the DMG, or that the DMG doesn't prohibit any changes like these, you state that it's no longer RAW. The rules for skill challenges are really quite open ended in how they are implemented, and there's only a few things that the rules in the DMG specify. Level & Complexity. Every example we've given has this as part of it. (or would, if we wrote the whole thing out.) Using skills. The DMG also says "Give some thought to which skills you select here, keeping in mind the goal of involving all the players in the action. You know what skills your player characters are good at, so make sure to include some chances for every character to shine." So the part that we mention about letting everyone have something to do, is in the DMG. Consequences. Every skill challenge has a consequence for failure. There's nothing here saying that it has to be an all-or-nothing event which you keep claiming is RAW. That's all the RAW insists happen in a skill challenge. Anything else is easily modifiable, and even some of the parts listed above can be modified (such as what the consequences are, or which skills are primary skills.) that's why we keep telling you examples of how to use something when you're looking for an example that goes by the RAW - because what is actually required by the RAW is pretty small, and still flexible in the parts that are required. PS. Can someone give me the page number where the DC's are? I can't seem to find them (I've found it before...). DMG, page 42. But they were modified in the update: http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/updates Carthain. "Eschew Obfuscation."
DerekDyer		#48	[-]
Posts: 7229 (05/11/09 15:01:00) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Okay guys but at this point all you've done is hijacked the #^$% out of this thread... and Zaraky is not 1% closer to changing his mind, and I have to say it would probably require divine intervention to do so. Edit: Don't read the tone too strongly, it wasn't written or intended that way, though on rereading it came across that way even to me... Last Edited By: DerekDyer 05/11/09 16:59:51. Edited 1 times.
nostantine		#49	[-]
Posts: 134 (05/11/09 20:44:05) Help me. Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Re: Skill challenges, it does take some flare on the part of the DM, much like DMing any other aspect of the game. If you listen to the recent podcast, the presenters describe 3 (I think) examples of how they ran different skill challenges. One was where the presenter broke a huge challenge down to multiple complex 1 challenges. I think the biggest pitfall of skill challenges is DM's who go by the book without any attention to tempo, description or the environment. If you just run D&D without any dramatic tension, or roleplaying interaction, your just playing D&D minis. Same holds true for skill challenges. DM's who are flexible and creative tend to report better results than ones who run strictly by the numbers in the book. Coincidentaly, I could see the same problems for DMs who run combat purely as numbers, with no creative inflection. Just my experience. MUGATU! EEE! EEE!
DarkHero69		#50	[-]
Posts: 164 (05/12/09 15:34:28) Just showed up Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Fyi, I think the only real way to do this is to try it for myself (and gaming group). So... I'll be back in a few months and tell you how it is. It's true that "4E is a different game", the question is "Is it a game my gaming group wants to play?". I guess we'll find out.
Yobgod		#51	[-]
Posts: 3323 (05/12/09 17:10:42) Mysterious Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts	Zaraky: "I've been trying to show why the examples in this thread aren't following RAW as well, and showing how they divert in meaningful ways." Not that it helps you tremendously, but the examples given all MAKE THE GAME MORE FUN, which is what the RAW sets forth as the DMs primary responsibility. Yes, we need a DMG with better examples, but I assure you one is coming. Recent DDI articles have not only elaborated on good Do's and Dont's of skill challenge design, but also confirmed that official online articles are meant to be treated as "Canon" (ie RAW) just as much as dead-tree published material and are subjected to the same play-test and approval process. So... consider these as official ways to modify your skill challenges: * limiting aid another actions * not allowing the same primary skill to succeed twice in a row (tell the players to change their strategy before they waste rolls!) * checks where success grants an ongoing (or temporary) bonus to future rolls (either specific skills or all rolls), or where failure grants an ongoing penalty, or both, rather than contributing a success or failure * checks that unlock the use of other skills on success (or failure) * results based on how many successes you get (example: -5% discount on critical expensive item per success, or quantity of assistance granted) * results based on how many failures you get (example: alertness of subsequent enemies, number of subsequent enemies, cost of acquiring needed information, time required to travel,...)

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Yuku free message boards

My first impressions with 4E and a lot of questions

Quick Reply