The Gaming Den

Roy wrote:Just one thing.

Just because they ARE out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.

PhoneLobster wrote:

Roy wrote:Just one thing.

Just because they ARE out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid.

That word does not mean what you think it means.

Kudos for taking the barrel in stride though.

Fuchs wrote:

shadzar wrote:One of the goal of the skill challenges was to help make the game more accessible, and part of this was to make it for those "shy" players to be able to participate more readily. This means a system of only rolling dice is all that is needed, and no real talking. So the system failed before it ever got off the ground because it was a flawed thought process.

Most of the players I know talk the scene out, then roll the dice to see how good their talking was, or roll the dice, then talk it out depending on the result.

Like combat, or sleight of hand, or crafting, or any other action.

There is nothing required from the skill challenge system to talk anything out though. Sure some may, but do you need to?

I have had this conversation with many before claiming the rules say to tell what you are doing, and that can boil down to simply "I may a diplomacy check" ~rolls dice~

The system was made to remove roleplaying and make a more fair game to balance out the players rather than the charactes where some are inept at roleplaying, but deserve the right to play the game. So their inabilities are no longer a constraint and can just roll the dice without having to worry about...if I may borrow from Gary...."that silly thespianism".

shadzar wrote:...

Thank you, that is all.

And there's nothing in the combat system that requires you to describe what you're doing or what the enemies do in reaction beyond the level of "I make an attack roll and deal damage."

Fuckin' %$#@$%@#$%, say I.

PhoneLobster wrote: Talk to the hand, it might have some idea about what the fuck you are gibbering about and what relevance it has to anything. No wait, mister hand says "This guy is rambling incoherently".

Mister hand begins to agree with Mr Paranoid Roy. Mister hand thinks you might really be he who cannot be named.

Mister hand may have gone quite crazy by being forced to listen to your twisted self contradictory ramblings.

Heh heh heh. That is fucking hilarious PhoneLobster.

---

@Shadzar

Shadzar wrote: You solved the problem in your own post. If you have an ability score called CHA short ofr charisma, then you don't need some complex system to determine things.

The DM just needs to take into account the CHA of the character compared to the person they are trying to talk to.

Higher CHA means more likely to convince someone. I have never had a problem taking the player into consideration as a DM as to what they are doing. One of the reasons is that not every player plays alone. They play as a group. The odds of only a single player being around any NPC to deal with the matter are moot. The reason being another can come along and ask something and get more.

CHA and these skills are also not auto-wins. Many people are "popular" or have higher charisma than others in the real world, but often find themselves at odds with some people that just don't like them. No matter what the charisma is, it isn't a magic "everyone loves me" stat score.

Again this is where the DM comes into play to do his job, and doesn't need this skill challenge system. The DM would take the playerinto consideration and how well he is trying with his own skills to do the job, and let it pas or fail based on the player. A more well spoken player may not find the same being so easy for him because it is measured against the player.

McBard puts 100% into it with the high stat score and succeeds, but McQuiet only puts 10% into it (same real time and amount of work as McBard player) but due to low stat socre and not putting that much effort into it doesn't succeed.

It is just something DMs learn over time to be able to work with any player they have that may have some difficulty in roleplaying. Again some static system that tries to fix it all for everyone won't work, because everyone is different. The DM should work with his group to make things work for them. Otherwise if you just need a system or quick fix, flip the coin to make it a 50/50 chance.

You are talking complete bullshit here. The first part you seem to have replaced the whole of D&D's skill system with:

Shadzar's skill system for conversations wrote:If your CHA is higher than the person you are talking to then you convince them of what you are saying.

After that you start saying that it doesn't matter if one person is shit because the Bard can do all the talking for the party. Then you directly contradict yourself by saying that the system you just typed was bullshit and that instead you should use the following skill system:

Shadzar's revised conversation system wrote:The harder the DM thinks the player is trying to roleplay compared to the DM's view of their roleplaying capabilities the better the PC is at convincing others of their viewpoint.

Are you really proposing that you should use this as a system? Because the McQuiet guy will often try to roleplay 100% as well, since they are good at it and will probably gain some enjoyment from doing so. If the PC who is supposed to be shit at talking is played by a guy who is roleplaying effectively then what happens? How much more effort does it take before the shit guy is better at social situations than the guy who is supposed to be better at it?

shadzar wrote: ... I cannot really related to what you are even asking since I don't play 2.5 and up editions of (A)D&D.

shadzar, you're using the same words as everyone you're arguing with, but because of your edition of choice they don't mean the same things or come with the same preconceptions. Later versions of D&D are explicitly less MTP than earlier editions and explicitly rely less on DM adjudication. The written and oft-stated intent was to make skills and skill challenges work in a way that was more consistent between games by requiring less G/DM intervention. You can call that rules lawyering if you want and say that the behavior is wrong, but you're supposed to play those editions with die rolls as much as, if not more, than your acting ability.

I'm not saying what you want is 'wrong', you should play what you want after all, but I am saying that what you suggest is wrong in the context of 4E D&D. Trying to reinsert it into this particular system does little more than showcase your ignorance of the system and its core design decisions and principles. Arguing for those things is really just arguing for not playing this editions because it does things that you don't like. That's fine, it's just not relevant to a discussion of what's wrong with something in the context of it's greater whole or how to fix it without just building a new system with different goals.

I recall that pre-3e and pre-proficiencies, 1e and 2e pretty much solely contained rules for combat, with non-combat rules being after thoughts tossed in and, well, random tables for whore encounters.

shadzar wrote:There is nothing required from the skill challenge system to talk anything out though. Sure some may, but do you need to?

Now look what you've made me do. I'm going to have to piece back together the torn up pages up my 4e DMG so I can see if you're right. Alas.

DMG p73 (with errata) wrote:When a player participates in a skill challenge, let that player's character use any skill the player wants. As long as you or the player can come up with a way to let this secondary skill play a part in the challenge, go for it."

So sure, when faced with the 'climbing the mountain' skill challenge, the player can say "I make a Diplomacy check". Then the DM can say "How does that play a part in the challenge?", and the player has to talk it out. Alternatively, the DM can talk it out. If neither the DM nor the player can figure out a way to let that skill help, then the player has to use a different skill.

Thus, talking stuff out is compulsory to use the rules as written, but it doesn't have to be the player that does the talking.

TarkisFlux wrote:I'm not saying what you want is 'wrong', you should play what you want after all, but I am saying that what you suggest is wrong in the context of 4E D&D. Trying to reinsert it into this particular system does little more than showcase your ignorance of the system and its core design decisions and principles. Arguing for those things is really just arguing for not playing this editions because it does things that you don't like. That's fine, it's just not relevant to a discussion of what's wrong with something in the context of it's greater whole or how to fix it without just building a new system with different goals.

The idea of the system was explained upthread. They wanted a system to allow for people to not have to do the acting bits for whatever reason and get on with the "fun".

Recall the DMG saying skip the interaction with the two guards because that isn't fun.

They tried to define fn for everyone, and make a crappy system in which to resolve the RP elements without roleplaying.

This system they created won't work for everyone.

The injection of the old system you are attributing me with is not something since DMs do what they damn well please anyway. If a DM isn't working with his players to make the game run right for them, that DM needs to stop playing any sort of D&D because he is a fool.

The DM must work with the players to make the game work.

If the DM isn't doing his job, then no system will work, and that will be the excuse used for trying to change another portion of a system into this stupid skill challenge type of thing.

The DMs aren't playing it right and screwing up so lets blame the rules because the DMs don't do their jobs, and make the game idiotproof.

You are going to end up with ALL of D&D being flipping coins in the long run as you try to simplify the game for stupid or lazy people.

The DM must do his job, no matter whether he runs D&D, another RPG, or the piece of cow flop that calls itself D&D with the nom-de-plume 4th edition.

Look, just because dice adjudicate results does not mean you can or should rule out any roleplaying.

It's just not fair to penalize the poor tactics guy who took the high IQ so he could 'think up' via dice better tactics. Or to penalize the guy with the stutter who wants to play the party face with the high Diplomacy roll. Or to penalize the guy who always describes their combat attack wrong.

Roleplaying is about taking on roles that are not you.

-Crissa

shadzar wrote:They wanted a system to allow for people to not have to do the acting bits for whatever reason and get on with the "fun".

Recall the DMG saying skip the interaction with the two guards because that isn't fun.

I can't find anything in the DMG saying skip interactions with guards - do you have a page number? Looking on page 21, I can find suggestions to skip over mundane unexciting details. That's because they're mundane and unexciting, not because they might involve acting. Also on page 21, I see specific guidance on "Conversation" that indicates that yes, players and DMs are still expected to engage in amateur dramatics.

Your assertions are not supported by the evidence.

shadzar wrote: As I said it comes down to the age old war. Roleplaying vs Rollplaying

Dear Shadzar,

Welcome and thank you for triggering the (not-so) fameous "Kobajagrande's Rant About Things That Ruin RPGs".

Our favorite topic: "Roleplaying vs Rollplaying Mentality".

Now, this mentality came from the fact that D&D began as a skirmish wargame that had roleplaying idea added on top of it. But what is roleplaying you ask (actually, you don't ask because you think you know. Trust me, you should ask)? Roleplaying means playing a role. It means you play a fictional character in a fictional story, who, according to an unwritten rule, is placed against many different challenges during the course of the story.

Of course, the people who played D&D (a skirmish wargame, remember), naturally figured out that challenges should not be just combat ones. There are dozens of things in the world surrounding the characters in a roleplaying game that could pose as an interesting challenge - environment, social settings, you name them. However, the system provided them with no tools to work with, so they had to make them up themselves. They improvised.

Fortunately, the industry progressed since then. Different systems tried to take into consideration that characters can run into non-combat challenges and tried to provide solutions as to how it can play out. How successful were they isn't the question now. What is important is...

What is important that a huge step in design idea has been made. It is an idea that roleplaying does not mean acting. It does not stop when you pick up the dice. The dice are there to show an element of chance and dramatics, to make success or failiure at a task random and unpredictable - whether it is combat or conversation or survival in the wilderness.

Nothing there stops you from acting out your speeches. Nothing prevents you from acting out scenes like those from the beginning of Reservoir Dogs when the gang sits, and plans the robbery. Nothing prevents you from acting out those villain/Bond conversations in every James Bond movie. But what a system should have is provide framework to resolve the party brokering a multilateral peace treaty between three ancient enemies - important tasks which must challenge the abilities of the characters, not of the players.

EDIT: BTW. And frankly, the mentality that all social interactions should be acted out is making RPGs retarded. It leads to shit such as SW SAGA, where you have talents such as "Great Negotiator" and "Great Advisor" which... Help you in combat. Idiotic.

shadzar wrote: ... They wanted a system to allow for people to not have to do the acting bits for whatever reason and get on with the "fun".
[....]
This system they created won't work for everyone.

As Crissa explained, the designers wanted a system where you could be a crappy roleplayer and not be penalized for it in the game. The game even says you should come up with ways to use your skills or talk things out, but your creativity isn't as important as your character's ability. They also wanted a system that translated between games more easily by normalizing expectations as to who could do what and what it took to achieve it. There's a reason why it was a pain in the ass to bring 2e characters between games and why it is much easier to do the same with 4e characters.

Of course that won't work for everyone though. I don't believe I ever suggested it should or that they were good goals to have. If the system doesn't work for the players and the DM they should probably go find another system that better fits what they want. The job of the 4e DM is much tighter than the job of a 2e or 3e DM. 4e is not a game that reserves the type of power for the DM that you suggest, and while you can do it anyway you're not using the rules or design principles of the game anymore.

The job of the 4e DM is much tighter than the job of a 2e or 3e DM. 4e is not a game that rest serves the type of power for the DM that you suggest, and while you can do it anyway you're not using the rules or design principles of the game anymore.

I heavily, heavily disagree with that.

It's probably a little tighter than a 2E DM, but a 3E DM? Not a chance.

I raise you monster creation, magical item hauls, and skills not covered by the rules but are still important.

Wait Lago, you just lost me. The fact that you do less of those things in 4e than 3e means that your role as DM is more broad?

Wait Lago, you just lost me. The fact that you do less of those things in 4e than 3e means that your role as DM is more broad?

If a certain aspect of gameplay (like monster creation) requires more DM input and adjucation then, yes, your role as the DM has expanded.

My experience with 4e has been that it requires significantly less input or adjudication than 3e overall Lago, but I defer to you on that as you play the game regularly and I don't. The more general point, that the roles are more constrained in both systems than in 2e because there is a system to adjudicate non-combat success and failure besides convincing the DM that 'that's how it should be' and that backing away from that setup is not an improvement for the type of game 4e wants to be, I think stands.

I'm bumping this thread because there has been some hullabaloo about Skill Challenges.

Also Mike Mearls is an incompetent ass and I like humiliating him; after Bruce Cordell and Andy Collins get fired I want to see him go.

Please define "hullabaloo".

The Dark Sun thread has some jackass defending skill challenges. You should go make fun of him.

It means uproar.

The Dark Sun thread has some jackass defending skill challenges. You should go make fun of him.

[over there]

Think about what you just said for a moment.

What to do instead: One of the key components to getting people to try to contribute is to make their contributions be positive, or at least neutral. That means not using up party resources to act. The party could be limited by the number of total challenge rounds, or individual characters could be knocked out of the challenge after they individually rack up enough failures. Either way, a character who was ill suited for a challenge could still pull a success out of their rounds and the team would be richer for that assistance (however minor).

1) Every character MUST act on their turn.
2) They cannot spend their turn on aid another.

What to do instead: This is more complicated, because you could attack it from several directions. The first is the skill bonuses themselves. If you tightened up the bonuses a lot you could just tantalize people with a shot at an easier skill check and have them jump ship willingly to a secondary or tertiary skill. Or you could go after it on the resource management end. If individual skills couldn't be used every round, you would obviously end up using different skills now and again. If skills had some kind of skill fatigue where using the same skill over and over again was increasingly difficult you would eventually want to switch over to another technique voluntarily no matter how far apart your skill bonuses were.

There's a few ways of approaching this.

Skill fatigue is one of them.

Having another skill be lower isn't, though, because people in that skill will still spam it.

One challenge I wrote had a sort of "side quest" in it. Background: the characters are in a floating city and the magic crystals which hold the city up have been messed up; one has been blown out and the rest are surging wildly in order to try and make up for the missing crystal, but they are unable to automatically equilibrate themselves. Now, you can make Arcana checks and Theivery checks to manually adjust the balance between the crystals, as standard.

However, you can instead make a History check; if you succeed, you remember that they used to store extra power crystals down here back during the last war. With a successful Perception check, you can go through the storeroom, search admidst the giant piles of ancient golems and crap, and find one of the crystals. With a successful Athletics check, you can put it into place, and with a successful Arcana or Thievery check you can set it back up.

I think if you built challenges with this sort of thing in mind (and made it better to do this than spam skill checks, and possibly make several such "sidequests" as the ONLY way to complete something, so they choose between doing several things), you would end up with a lot more diversity in skill checks. The downside is that it removes some of the creativity from the players coming up with random crap.

TD wrote: 1) Every character MUST act on their turn.

Um, why?

This doesn't eliminate the core problem of skill challenges. All it means now is that when the bard goes to talk to the Ice Queen is that the other adventurers hang out at the bar. Or he sneaks out in the middle of the night to go talk to her.

I think it's really, really shitty game design to force that poor fighter bastard who has nothing but Athletics, Heal, and Endurance to not only have to participate in a social skill challenge but also force them to fail. It's not even like a combat encounter; if you're a level 1 redshirt in a party full of epic-level fighters fighting a dragon, at least your contribution to the fight will be neutral.

What's with the extra screwjob for skill challenges?