PDA

View Full Version : D&D 4e Dungeon Mastering Help



The X WolF
2010-12-30, 10:02 AM
This is a thread for asking questions when you re having Dungeon Mastering trouble in D&D 4e. Feel free to ask rules questions or for help with your story.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 10:04 AM
Ill start

How is it possible to place non combat encounters in your adventure without railroading the party. whenever I put one in my adventure my party says it was forced. should I just not put them in there at all?

Thanks

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 10:09 AM
How is it possible to place non combat encounters in your adventure without railroading the party.

It would help if you explain what kind of non-combat encounters you're using and why the players think they're being forced.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 10:14 AM
I used a chase through a town ounce, they said it forced them through the narrative and by non combat encounters I mean skill challenges. I just don't know how to bring into the game without forcing them to do something.

Badgerish
2010-12-30, 10:23 AM
Likewise, we need more info to understand your question.

Do you mean skill challenges or just situations that prompt the PCs to talk and make choices?

If these are skill challenges, are they questioning the mechanical limitations? (e.g. do they want to take extra time and succeed without a SC?)

Is it something that doesn't make sense for the characters? (e.g. if the party are unwashed scum, they shouldn't get invited to any fancy balls. If the party lacks stealth skills, they are unlikely to be hired to sneak into some guarded location without alerting the guards)

Are these mandatory events that can't be avoided? (see "but thou must" on tvtropes)

Edit: SCs 'force' the PCs to do something in the same way combat encounters do. If you meet a group of enemies, you need to fight them/flee from them/otherwise make them not a threat.

If the PCs where being chased, what where there other options? Give themselves up and talk their way out of it? Ditch whatever they stole and get off due to lack of evidence? Stand and fight?

If the PCs where chasing, then what where their other options? Let them get away? Use the combat engine and chase them in combat rounds?

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 10:23 AM
I used a chase through a town ounce, they said it forced them through the narrative and by non combat encounters I mean skill challenges. I just don't know how to bring into the game without forcing them to do something.
Have you tried not using skill challenges and instead asking the characters what they want to do without the strict rule format?

SCs are one of the most controversial rules in 4E, and quite a number of people avoid them like the very plague, instead using normal skill checks like in every other RPG.

ninja_penguin
2010-12-30, 10:23 AM
One of the big things for skill challenges is that you should rarely, if ever, go 'okay, put your weapons down, this is a skill challenge'. It only turns things from 'I attack the monster with my weapon' into 'I attack the DC with my athletics skill'.

It's far better to basically have a general layout of the skill challenge ahead of time. Set up the scene like an investigation, or something that is more than just 'roll and see if you pass or fail'. For example, instead of convincing one guy of something 4 times, have there be four people that you need to convince to do something, and have each of them react differently to various attempts. Hell, have one guy go along because he loses an arm wrestling contest, he's just nutty like that.

Also, if you're doing things like a chase scene or something, and there are valid powers a play could be using, let them use it. Don't fall into a cutscene paradox where suddenly all weapons are locked down unless it's a quick time event.

Sipex
2010-12-30, 10:24 AM
I'm unsure what your players mean, are you're forcing them to give chase?(ie: You tell them they give chase instead of having them choose to do so)

Do your players know they can do more than what you tell them (ie: Stop chasing, think of a different plan, use different skills?)

TheEmerged
2010-12-30, 01:03 PM
Okay, first off I'll second the "never tell the players its a skill challenge" recommendation. Skill Challenges are like movie special effects -- if the players notice them, you failed.

Here's an example I'm building for our next session.

Backstory spoilered for boredom protection.
The party is 12th level on the verge of 13. They are in Erelhei-Cinlu, the drow city from the Underdark book. They initially came her tracking down who was trying to kill them but have gotten caught up in a number of plot & subplot threads. They are allied but not quite working for House Vae (one of 8 in the city).

The main plot has reached the point where a mysterious blight has spoiled the Cornucopia ritual the city depends on for supplying sufficient food, and as a result the city faces the threat of a famine. The party has determined that the blight was brought to the city via illegal Leccinum trade (they may even be right).

The party is going to be entering the tavern they believe to be the distribution point for Leccinum (spice) trade in the city. They are not expecting a fight but know that one is possible. What the party does NOT know is that the derro (evil psionic dwarves) are trying to take over the Leccinum trade as part of their ongoing efforts to undermine/conquer the drow city. They are about to enter the tavern themselves, disguised as drow thanks to an oni illusionist that is an ongoing plot villain (permanently 3 levels above the party).

One possible outcome if the derro & party start fighting is that the barkeep & his allies are going to cut his loses and run rather than risk a three-front fight. The following skill checks will be made during the fight (I haven't set the DC's yet).


PERCEPTION (X): recognize that the barkeep/allies aren't just getting out of the way, but grabbing things of value. No more than one success. Up to two failures between this and the next check.
INSIGHT (X, lower than Perception): recognize that the barkeep/allies aren't just getting out of the way, but grabbing things of value. No more than one success but both can count. Up to two failures between this and the previous check.
STREETWISE (X, hard): the barkeep/allies aren't fighting to defend their turf. They must keep the spice somewhere else. They're probably going to split up to reduce the chance that someone follows them to the spice. No more than one success or failure..
INTIMIDATE vs DERRO (X): the drow pause to re-examine the situation - maybe the party is on their side. No more than one success or failure.
INTIMIDATE vs DROW (x, hard): the drow decide that running away will just upset the party more, and they can't risk that. No more than one success, but counts as two failures.
BLUFF/DIPLOMACY vs DROW (X): as intimidate vs derro. Only one of these two skills can count toward the encounter.
BLUFF/DIPLOMACY vs DERRO (NA): automatically count as a failure unless somehow encouraging for the drow.
ARCANA (special): secretly place an arcane tracer on the drow. The check is hard unless a complimentary Stealth check is made by the same player. This can be attempted a second time if the first succeeds, but failing on the second check negates the first success instead of counting as a failure.
THIEVERY (x): a tavern makes a lousy distribution point -- too obvious of a target. The spice itself must be somewhere else. No more than one success or failure.

Three Successes before Three Failures: the party gets bonuses to the skill checks on the next chain. +2 bonus for the difference between the two (3 success, 1 failure = +4 bonus).
Three Failures before Three Successes: the party gets penalties to the skill checks on the next chain. -2 penalty for the difference between the two.
At Least Two Failures: the party will not be able to convince the barkeep to cooperate with them.
At Least Two Successes: the party has a chance to take over the spice trade themselves, hand it over to a drow ally, or put a stranglehold on it that will delay it coming back.

---------------------------------------

In play, this will be happening during a combat encounter (most likely players vs derro). Before the character declares their actions, I'll ask if there's anything else they want to attempt to do (this is normal for me). If we get through the first round without anybody making checks, I'll start some passive perception/insight checks. On a success, I'll drop a hint to the players that they should be doing something else. I'll be tracking the skill challenge as the combat continues.

Afterwards, the players will have a second skill challenge (this one more obvious). Again, however, instead of announcing that I'll ask the party what they want to do about tracking the drow down and offer skill checks as appropriate. Instead of the player saying "I want to make a Streetwise check," they'll tell me they want (for example) to look for boltholes, look for people that might have seen them, and so forth.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 01:10 PM
Okay, first off I'll second the "never tell the players its a skill challenge" recommendation. Skill Challenges are like movie special effects -- if the players notice them, you failed.
Tha's definitely true. In order for an SC to work, the players either need to be ignorant of the mechanics involved, or to be deliberately ignoring those mechanics. Not telling the players what's going on helps in accomplishing that.

(of course, this tends to fall under "security through obscurity isn't")

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 02:12 PM
They way I set mine was up was after the party met up (Intrecately designed by me) they were all looking for someone. he wasmissing and it was a mystery. they were searching is room and saw a man watching them across the street in a window. when he saw that they had noticed him he took of running. They said we chase him and I went into a skill challenge chase.

Sipex
2010-12-30, 02:21 PM
Okay, so it sounds like you might've just said "This is a skill challenge" and they took that badly as they felt 'locked in'.

If this is the case just don't define it next time, keep track of it like a skill challenge (ie: behind the screen) but don't tell them they're at X successess out of Y or that they've had Z failures out of 3. Just ask what they'd like to do after the situation is given tell them what they need to roll.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 02:22 PM
They said we chase him and I went into a skill challenge chase.

Okay, did that involve anything except athletics checks?

Because by skill challenge logic, the party should also be able to use stealth (to sneak up on him), arcana (to divine where he's going), religion (to pray for help), history (to remember what the city map looks like), or bluff (to convince him to walk slower). Otherwise, all the characters that don't have athletics trained can't participate.

Sipex
2010-12-30, 02:23 PM
Also, remember if your players want to roll something you didn't re-empt ask them how it would help and if they give a decent explanation (ie: Something more than just 'It will help') set the DC.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 02:30 PM
All sounds good and yes it had more than ahtletics. I did say it was a skill challenge and I did let them see successes and fails. this new desrete method sounds more fun and I see how it may work but how do I prevent the rerolling of skills? also I wanted to thank everyone who ha replied.

Sipex
2010-12-30, 02:32 PM
You don't prevent the re-rolling of skills unless it would make sense to.

Since failures are present re-rolling isn't an issue as you already have a way to record the failure.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 02:45 PM
Okay I see you guys are all very helpful and I thank you for your time. I want to be able to help people to so if you have any questions I want you to ask them. Also Im curious who else Dungeon Masters for 4th edition because its good to know. post if you do

Thanks

Sipex
2010-12-30, 02:53 PM
I DM 4th edition, have been DMing this campaign for nearly 2 years (as of late January) and my players just hit Paragon Tier (it's kind of late due to our playing schedule and a 6 month hiatus somewhere in there).

I've tried a lot of different things and get a lot of input from my players so it's a good campaign. Next session will be DMed by our Wizard has he created a special dungeon he wanted to try out and had me work it into the story.

I also play our cleric because we needed one at the time.

ninja_penguin
2010-12-30, 02:54 PM
this new desrete method sounds more fun and I see how it may work but how do I prevent the rerolling of skills?

Set up almost cutscene esque scenes. I had a skill challenge (not as polished as I'd like, but it was an experiment early on in DM'ing), where the players had just lit an astral beacon in the mournland, and now had to flee forces of the Lord of Blades and Empress Donata.

Scene 1: As they exit, they run into a small group of both warforged and Donata's flunkies (both sides hate each other, by the way, and have been skirmishing in the city. The beacon going off has made everybody rush up to the place).

Options I had were rolling bluff/intimidate. Convince one side you're working for them, then either join in or run off as the minions fight, or just bluff them both down with 'you don't want this. walk away'. Alternative would be running, bluff for 'LOOK OVER THERE!' *flee*. Also an auto-pass as I'd been dropping hints as to the Emperesses call signs for units. Happily one of my players had caught on, and they managed to get the two sides to fight while they ran off.

Scene 2: Setting up a path to book it out of the streets. Streetwise, stealth, and the like was allowed here.

Scene 3: Avoiding a monster stampede. mindless dezeins of the mournland go charging down the streets, trying to get away from the beacon. Because they group passed step two, they had reduced DCs of acrobatics or stealth to avoid it. One of the Eladrin said 'Okay, I use Fey Step to get up on top of the roof'. Auto-success for him, but Fey Step wasn't usable for the encounter at the end. Anybody who failed takes a fortitude attack, and loses a surge if it hits them.

Scene 4: as the clashing forces really get into swing, they take an attack from all the projectiles and magical stuff flying around. Again, step 2 gives them ruduced attack rolls. I had some amount of damage happen.

I had another step or two, but I forget what they are off the top of my head. At the end of this there was an encounter with one of the sentry groups at the edge of the city.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 02:59 PM
Cool guys now I have a question of style cinimatic prepared or on the fly? advanteges or disadvantages

Lord Loss
2010-12-30, 03:00 PM
My DM has a predilection of going Okay. Skill challenge time! before skill challenges, bu still lets us make plot-centric choices. For instance, we found people trapped under rocks, screaming for help. Once we had moved most of the rocks, we found out that they were goblins. We were then giving the choice of saving them, not saving them or just leaving. My character said that there was no way we were leaving helpless people to die on the basis of their species and freed them. One of them was called Squee (:smallamused:) and was a high level caster. We found out that they were Unaligned and, using my persuasive skills (Insight+Diplomacy) , I realized that Squee didn't really want to be evil but wasn't sure how to be nonevil, what with the human prejudices against his race. (he had an army og hobgoblins at his disposal). We then ateempted to influence them towards good, which seemed to workto an extent.

My point here is that well-crafted skill challenges can be plot centric and allow for lots of choice, as long as there are more options than succes or failure (or at least there seem to be).

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 03:24 PM
I see what you mean and I will try to incorperate them into my plot. I am just trying to write my adventure whilr checking the forums. It is very useful, I want to hear some of your D&D plots they sound really good.

Lord Loss
2010-12-30, 03:42 PM
That particular one is from my current DM and we haven't gotten to the bottom of it quite yet, but I'll provide a bit of advice from my years of DMing.

I find it's always good to prepare a linear flowchart of events coupled with maps, stats and general plot outline, leaving the details vague. Feel free to formulate your adventures as a multitude of hypothesises. (Eg. If the PCs make it to the Temple of J'rin D'a before dawn, then they will encounter the emissary of Bas. If, on the other hand, they take the longer path that bringst hem to the Watchtower of Chronomim, then they have a chance of finding his Glaive. His Glaive allows them to do X, which prevents Y from happening, but Bas' emsissary will tell them an important prochecy or provide other assistance depending on if they slew Orik Dragonfang a few adventures ago.) I reccomend you check out Wolfgang Baur's Adventure Builder (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/ab), a series of advice for DM adventure creation. Also, you'll want to include links to the characters (in my old camapign the PCs ran into a demon that knew one of the PCs father and how to free him from his exile. The father was a Shadow Demon trapped in the Blind Eterneties for allowing his son, the PC, to live knowing that he was a Shadowchild. It's a long story). In our current camapign, the enemies are often surprised by the presence of a Genassi, because they work for a group of Genassi who's intentions are unknown to us at the moment).

Finally present some choice and some illusion of choice. By illusion of choice, I mean let them pick to go between a variety of different inns to go to, each with different NPCs, but each still has the assasin that's out to get them or the old, quest-giving wizard sitting in the corner. By choice, I mean devise some adventure locales and let them pick which to go to (or which to go to first). ideally, do this at the end of a session so that you have time to prepare the adventure for the next one.

I'll post some more advice later, including some of my plots, as soon as I dig them up.

Sipex
2010-12-30, 03:47 PM
My plot is large and convoluted so I won't go over it all, I'll give some highlights though.

The Arranged Marriage

The group's Eladrin fighter is contacted by her father and persuaded to return to the feywild. The rest of the party hunts her down (finding the portal to the feywild) and makes their way to the protected city she's in. They find out where she is and eventually contact her only to find out she's engaged.

Apparently she was arranged to be married to a very powerful mage and it's part of the reason why she left home. She also meets her husband to be, Mindartis, who isn't in support of arranged marriages but would like to get to know her to see if maybe they could fall in love naturally.

The party supports her and Mindartis takes the lot of them to the light house where he works. The light house is a sort of magical research facility.

The party does some quests there and explores the light house while the Eladrin gets to know Mindartis. During their time they begin to find clues indicating something is up. Caelynna (the eladrin) already suspects her father is being controlled somehow and now the party has been finding weird beetles around the place.

Mindartis eventually confronts the party and admits that he feels like something is wrong too. He shares their suspicions about Caelynna's father and has gathered some evidence that shows the beetles have been retreating into an underground temple built under the light house. Everyone agrees to check it out with Mindartis keeping Caelynna in the tower for safety (as her father can't scry on her in the tower).

The rest of the party enters the secret temple, they complete several puzzles and fight a few battles before capturing a Gnoll sent to kill them. The warlock speaks infernal and is able to get the gnoll to admit that Lord Mindartis hired him. The party rushes to Caelynna's rescue (who has no idea what is going on) only to find out that the secret entrace to the temple is now sealed shut. Determined to find a way out they head back in and complete it.

The party confronts a wraith which has the ability to summon skeletons and quickly dispatches it with some clever tactics. Once defeated the wraith calms down and assumes the form of Mindartis.

Mindartis (the wraith) explains that he was attacked and killed nearly a month ago by a Lamia (a creature which is made of beetles and capable of taking the form of a creature it has eaten) and trapped down here. He went mad watching the Lamia take over his life and attacked the PCs in spite. He offers the party teleportation up to the tower as repayment.

Upstairs in the tower, Mindartis (the lamia) has taken Caelynna to a large chapel like room with guards posted all around. He has tried to get close to her but she has sensed something is wrong (good insight check) and is avoiding him. He seems to control the guards somehow and they begin to close in when the rest of the party is teleported in.

A large battle ensues against Mindartis (the lamia) refusing to admit he's a lamia. The players fight off the guards and severely wound Mindartis when he pulls out an orb of sorts (which takes off from his hand and flies around the room). Seconds later Caelynna's father enters the room (he's a very high level warlock) and begins to wail on the PCs. Caelynna gets a clever idea and attacks the floating orb when it passes by, causing it to crack. The rest of the party follows suit and the orb breaks, freeing Caelynna's father from his hold.

Mindartis goes berserk and transforms into his lamia form. The PCs trade blows with him, trying to keep their distance because of an aura he now possesses (and the fact he does a lot of damage). He focuses mainly on Caelynna before a few lucky crits bring him low.

He begins to run away, bugs breaking off his body when the rogue pulls out a jar of potent alcohol, stuffs a rag in and throws it at Mindartis. The warlock throws a stream of fire at it and it explodes, leaving a scorch mark where Mindartis (the lamia) used to be.

In the end, since there was no physical body left of Mindartis, Caelynna's father re-incarnated him in a horse body who now travels with her.

Just one example.

The X WolF
2010-12-30, 04:55 PM
Wow those are cool I want to make my party feel as though my adventures are cool too. Im trying to recreate the feeling I get when I have a good DM for them

TheEmerged
2010-12-30, 05:57 PM
In my case I prefer to be as prepared as feasible, with the understanding the "on the fly" is going to happen.

My case may be different from yours, however. For us, 2.0-3.5 hours a month as a single session is all the playtime we have. As a result, "time at the table" is precious and anything I can do in advance to make that go faster is preferred.

I leaven this heavily with the experience that things *will* go off the rails and that's usually a good thing.


Because by skill challenge logic, the party should also be able to use stealth (to sneak up on him), arcana (to divine where he's going), religion (to pray for help), history (to remember what the city map looks like), or bluff (to convince him to walk slower). Otherwise, all the characters that don't have athletics trained can't participate.

Mostly good examples, but I have to throw a qualifier here. Be careful about Arcana, Religion, and History (and to a lesser extent, Nature & Dungeoneering). They're broad enough that they can be rationalized into almost any skill challenge.

As a result, I typically set DC's for them a little higher, limit the number of successes you can get from them (for example, I often limit it so only 1 success from those three skills counts toward the challenge), treat them as "assisting" rolls to more legitimate skills (like allowing an Arcana check to determine the difficulty of a Thievery check), and/or require an especially good explanation/story.

For example, as bizarre as it sounds I did allow a Religion check for an attempt to forde a river - once. And the only reason I allowed that was the player did a good job of creating the fable\myth\legend from the point of view of the character's religion (a paladin of Raok, the patron of war in my campaign world).

More often than not, though, if someone suggests making a Religion check with so flimsy an explanation as praying about it? At best they are going to get to roll Religion to reduce the DC of the athletics check from me. More likely they're going to get a Religion check where a success is me suggesting a better skill to choose :smalltongue:

----------------------------------------

Since it looks like we forgot to mention this, another pointer. Skill challenges work better in "branching" scenarios than "pass/fail" scenarios. That is, they work best when success or failure at the challenge doesn't stall\railroad the adventure. They work best when they're going to make things easier/harder for the party, or decide which way the party is going.

For example, last session we reached a crux point as to whether or not the party was going to help protect the drow against the derro or help the derro overthrow the drow (or, since the party is not evil, decide to take the Terrorcon route and fight everybody). This happened as part of a skill challenge where the party was dealing with an angry mob. As such it felt more like a cinematic than a THACO chart.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 06:11 PM
Mostly good examples, but I have to throw a qualifier here. Be careful about Arcana, Religion, and History (and to a lesser extent, Nature & Dungeoneering). They're broad enough that they can be rationalized into almost any skill challenge.
I find that every skill can (and will) be rationalized in to almost any skill challenge - after all, doing so is the most effective way of succeeding at the SC. That is problematic, but it has no easy solution.

TheEmerged
2010-12-30, 06:21 PM
I find that every skill can (and will) be rationalized in to almost any skill challenge - after all, doing so is the most effective way of succeeding at the SC. That is problematic, but it has no easy solution.

Emphasis mine.

I think this is more a function of people setting the success/failure numbers too high myself. 3/3 works for most cases I've run into, with 6/3 being the upper end. The higher the number of successes, the flimsier the explanations I see.

Having said that, I have done some situations where part of what was happening was seeing how many successes\failures could be accumlated. Last session for example I had some scenarios where the same check was counting against multiple concurrent challenges - sometimes in reverse. For example, I had a rule where the first two times the party attempted an Intimidation check it against an unruly mob, it counted as a failure against one of the Plot NPCS. Similarly, several checks against other challenges counted as checks against another Plot NPC, and her table went all the way to 12 successes (the party ended up getting 7). Again, this was more a branching thing ("How much help is this NPC willing to give the party when this encounter is over?") than pass/fail.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-30, 06:28 PM
The higher the number of successes, the flimsier the explanations I see.
Yes. This is especially true if, by all logic, the party should already have succeeded at the task, but haven't scored enough successes yet.

It also happens when a party member simply has no applicable skills - e.g. a fighter in a social situation has little choice but to try athletics or endurance and hope it does something (intimidate is the most common automatic failure; besides, it's not like fighters have any charisma synergy in the first place).

Of course, both situations come up all the time in WOTC's official adventure modules.

TheEmerged
2010-12-30, 06:35 PM
Yes. This is especially true if, by all logic, the party should already have succeeded at the task, but haven't scored enough successes yet.

It also happens when a party member simply has no applicable skills - e.g. a fighter in a social situation has little choice but to try athletics or endurance and hope it does something (intimidate is the most common automatic failure; besides, it's not like fighters have any charisma synergy in the first place).

Of course, both situations come up all the time in WOTC's official adventure modules.

Let me play devil's advocate here for a second, Kurald. I'm asking this for the sake of discussion, not argument (just to make sure my tone isn't misunderstood).

Should a player that makes lazy skill choices, background choices, and feat choices be rewarded for those lazy choices? Should a player consider it safe to optimize all background & feat choices as if skill selections (or feats like Skill Training/Skill Focus/Jack of All Trades) will never matter? Should a player feel safe putting an 18 in their main state because their STR/CHA score is just a dump stat anyway?

How is this any different from expecting a player not to make lazy power/gear selections?

-----------------

In the particular "fighter in social situations" example, I don't feel the need to make every player make a roll just 'cause the rules say they should any more than I'd expect a wizard to make a basic melee attack just because the mob is in melee range.

Having said that... back when the party cleric was a dwarf, the player wanted to make an Endurance check in a social situation to try & drink the enemy general under the table :smallbiggrin:

Then again, in the party I DM the player for the paladin explicitly chose the class because he knew the party needed a new Charisma-monkey. He even chose his dual-class and paragon class based on this secondary role.

Shatteredtower
2010-12-30, 07:37 PM
Intimidate as automatic failure was always a bad idea. It should get a poor reception, but at least shake someone up enough to grant a bonus to the next check or perhaps even all checks of one type.

Besides, there's always Streetwise, for the useful tidbits within the gossip. Most challenges are set to be fair to the trained sort even if they receive neither feat support nor an ability modifier bonus. If that's not good enough, there's the benefit of Endurance for maintaining focus through the dry bits, providing the primary speakers with an edge.

" Excuse me, Lord Brisket, but my colleague here reminds me that you mentioned a Baron Omen among the assembled forces. Who is that, please?"

Athletics is very useful for looking the part of the capable field commander, content to leave courtly words to diplomats and governors while quietly taking all in. A silent partner looking good in "uniform" doesn't hurt a party's cause. Back in 2e, I knew a guy that thrived on that approach to everything.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-31, 05:21 AM
Should a player that makes lazy skill choices, background choices, and feat choices be rewarded for those lazy choices?

Well, no.

I'm not saying that this is right or that this is not a problem. But I do notice a tendency for people to make up excuses for using their best skill regardless of circumstances. Case in point, using Athletics in a social challenge to "look the part of the capable field commander".

I also notice that the rules reward this behavior. It should be obvious, since the rules require every character to participate, and both rules and peer pressure penalize failure, that players have an incentive to use their best skill if possible.


Should a player consider it safe to optimize all background & feat choices as if skill selections (or feats like Skill Training/Skill Focus/Jack of All Trades) will never matter? Should a player feel safe putting an 18 in their main state because their STR/CHA score is just a dump stat anyway?
The thing is, though, that many characters really don't have much of a choice. For example, if you play a fighter, you are going to suck at both social skills and knowledge skills. You must invest a lot of resources in it to become average at it, and becoming good is simply not possible.

And ironically, 4E prides itself on not having to choose between in-combat effectiveness and out-of-combat tricks. By reducing your fighter's Str to boost his Cha you're doing precisely that (and you'll be making way more Str rolls anyway).


In the particular "fighter in social situations" example, I don't feel the need to make every player make a roll just 'cause the rules say they should
Well, that's a good rule. It is also a step away from SC mechanics and a step closer to traditional skill checks.


Intimidate as automatic failure was always a bad idea.
I agree. It is, nevertheless, a common example.


Besides, there's always Streetwise, for the useful tidbits within the gossip. Most challenges are set to be fair to the trained sort even if they receive neither feat support nor an ability modifier bonus.
If a skill DC is reasonable for a character with no ability bonus nor feat support, then (1) that character is still better off using a skill he's good at, and (2) that DC is extremely easy for a character who's actually good at that skill. Why should the fighter make a Streetwise check at 60% success, when he knows that (1) he'll have 85% chance on Athletics, and (2) the party face will have 90% chance at Streetwise?

Shatteredtower
2010-12-31, 07:47 AM
There might be your problem, Kurald Gurain. The player should not know in advance what DC is necessary. Streetwise for a helpful insight? Easy check. You say that's too easy for the rogue? Sure, but that means someone else has to cover Bluff, Insight, Perception, or possibly even Thievery. Maybe that doesn't make a difference. Maybe it does. The DM shouldn't reveal the cards until the results are all in.

I saw your derision for the Athletics suggestion, but you miss the point. A skill challenge is an application process. Your team brings your strengths forward, and makes the effort to sell them. Not every strength will have equal value, but creativity should be awarded above formula. "I flex," is not going to help a social case, but "I draw upon my physical training to present myself as one the duke should deem capable for the work ahead of us," merits something, whether reminding the duke of his "glory days" or catching the fancy of less discerning courtiers who'd throw in good words for them.

Lord Loss
2010-12-31, 08:02 AM
We've houseruled that Intimidate can be based off of any ability, to give everyone an edge in combat encounters. For instance:

Dex Character: "I Juggle knives, giving the prisoner a cruel sneer".
Str Character: "I uproot that tree"
Con Character: "I display my wealth of battle scars"
Cha Character: This one is self-explanatory

Int and Wis really depend on the character's abilities, an intelligent caster will use int differently than a smart rogue.

Kurald Galain
2010-12-31, 08:56 AM
There might be your problem, Kurald Gurain. The player should not know in advance what DC is necessary.
Well, as a DM I wouldn't tell them the DCs myself. But if a player doesn't know what the DCs are, then why would he use a skill he's only mediocre in (hoping to get a low DC) instead of a skill he's good in?


creativity should be awarded above formula.
I agree, but the consequence of this approach is that players can always use their best skill regardless of situation - it's not that hard to think of a creative way of using it.

This is bascially what I mean when I say that the players either need to be ignorant of the mechanics involved, or to be deliberately ignoring those mechanics. Skill challenges are like tic-tac-toe: it's easy to figure out the best strategy for winning, but it's pretty boring if you actually use that strategy. It's a good solution to not use the best strategy for roleplaying reasons - but that begs the question why the mechanic is needed in the first place.

Talyn
2010-12-31, 09:39 AM
Look at it this way - Fighters and Barbarians simply cannot make skill and attribute selections that will help in some types of social/knowledge-based skill challenges. The system assumes a decent amount of combat optimization to the extent that a fighter who sacrifices his secondary attribute (DEX, CON or WIS, depending on build) for, say, Charisma will be at a mechanical disadvantage all the time.

Now, there are ways around this - STR to Intimidate being the most popular house rule I've seen - but really, the lesson that players take when DMs make skill challenges which only use skills/attributes their characters really shouldn't have is "don't play that character." Or worse, "I (the DM) would rather have you sit there bored than have you participate."

If you don't like players being clever and trying to use their "good" skills in skill challenges where it isn't really appropriate, then your other option is to build more dynamic skill challenges where the skills ARE appropriate. I've had some success is actually "splitting the party" and running two skill challenges at the same time - one half of the party is conducting a magical ritual while the other is shoring up a tower's defenses, as an example - so that someone has something to do all the time.

The X WolF
2010-12-31, 10:39 AM
Thats a good point your too good at playing devils advocate

TheEmerged
2010-12-31, 02:03 PM
If you don't like players being clever and trying to use their "good" skills in skill challenges where it isn't really appropriate, then your other option is to build more dynamic skill challenges where the skills ARE appropriate. I've had some success is actually "splitting the party" and running two skill challenges at the same time - one half of the party is conducting a magical ritual while the other is shoring up a tower's defenses, as an example - so that someone has something to do all the time.

I actively like and encourage "clever" (reference the "Religion for crossing a river" example). It's "lazy" (note my comment about the "Religion during a chase sequence" example), "lawyerly" (seeing just how twisted an explanation can get), and "optimized purely for combat" (in particular) I have a problem with.

To summarize my problem with "lawyerly": if you can use your best skill for everything, why are there separate skills to begin with?

To summarize my problem with "lazy" and "optimized purely for combat", let's start with what you said.


The system assumes a decent amount of combat optimization to the extent that a fighter who sacrifices his secondary attribute (DEX, CON or WIS, depending on build) for, say, Charisma will be at a mechanical disadvantage all the time.

It's not just about attribute scores. There are also background benefits, racial benefits, and feats to take into consideration. I'm not against optimization itself, but I'm a lazy DM if it is a "safe" choice.

One of my players is clearly optimized for Thievery checks, for example. His racial bonus reflects it, his background bonus reflects it, one of his utility powers is based on it, and he took Skill Focus for it. I don't have a problem with that, it's to be expected. "My job is to go stabbity in combat, and to keep the loot from going stabbity on us outside of it." Similarly the dragonborn paladin has a clearly optimized breath attack. Again, not a problem. Both of them arranged their backgrounds/feats to get what they want.

My issue is the way some players expect to ignore the opportunity costs. If you spend the extra points to have a score of 18 instead of 16, you're going to get a +1 benefit to a lot of actions from it. But those extra points could easily turn your dump stat into a 14 (a +2 bonus, or +3 overall). If I as DM allow you to benefit from the +1 without you ever wishing that +3 was somewhere else? I'm not doing my job well enough.

To give a practical example, I mentioned the dragonborn paladin in the group I DM that has spent several feats on his breath weapon. If I'm lazy as a DM and don't enforce the sight penalties while we're in the Underdark, he never pays the opportunity cost for choosing those feats instead of the one that gives him infrared vision & a bonus to perception (and the wizard never gets the chance to use cantrips in combat).

---------------------------

Let's go back to that chase sequence. The priest in the party I DM took STR as a dump stat (8). (It's an artifact of when she had the Pacifist Cleric feat, which she has since retrained out of). I probably don't need to tell you that she doesn't have Athletics trained, and is wearing chainmail (-1 speed and -1 athletics check on top of that). Frankly, she's almost as useless in a chase sequence as the stereotypical fighter in a social challenge.

Should I allow her to use her impressive Religion skill bonus to get around these penalties? If I do, there's no point in having a skill system. Should I allow her to get a bonus with a justification as flimsy as stopping to pray? Again, in my opinion that's lazy. She should have to look at the feats for removing the speed penalty and check penalty and not be able to dismiss them.

On the other hand, if the player comes up with a genuinely creative way of using an out-of-box skill check? "Stop those men, they stole from Lolth's treasury!" "You go on ahead, I'll follow behind and make sure they don't double-back on you!" It's just as much my job as DM to reward it.

---------------------------

I do allow different attribute checks for skills where I feel appropriate as well, just not as a constant substitution. I've allowed the party's rogue to use Thievery with Charisma in diplomatic checks against gang/mob type NPC's before. There are also times when Constitution makes far more sense than Strength for Athletics (as my marathon-running cousin will attest).

However, in my opinion there are times where it is appropriate for an Intimidate check to be an automatic failure against a check. Just as there are times when Bluff should be an automatic failure (against an Oracle-type character, for example), Diplomacy should be an automatic failure (against barbarian types who disdain "sissy words", for example), and so forth.

There are simply times when the skill is so far out of bounds that failure is the only result. "Excuse me, this is a library. What makes you think doing backflips off the bookcases is going to convince me to help you find a book?"

-----------------

I agree with and whole-heartedly second your suggestion about multiple concurrent challenges. They've almost become the norm for us in Paragon levels. It's a great way to mitigate the "Netrunner" symptom that can happen in certain narrow challenges. "You guys keep the guards distracted while I use my (insane) Thievery skill to pick their pockets..."

Sipex
2010-12-31, 02:14 PM
My favourite response to a player using something which won't work at all (like our rogue using bluff to try and convince the guards he's not standing in front of them) is "There are not enough dice in the world."

Shatteredtower
2010-12-31, 06:17 PM
When considering open ended choice of skills, remember that the difference between moderate and hard DCs are 7 to 8 points. It's a long time before a fighter has an easier time making hard Athletics checks than moderate ones for Streetwise, assuming training in both. The difference between easy and hard is even bigger than that of a trained primary stat and untrained dump stat at first.

If it's far fetched, it's either a hard check to succeed or a moderate to aid another. If it's completely unbelievable, either tell the player beforehand it will fail or allow the difficult check that can earn another bonus, rather count as a success.

Success is never meant to be a requirement of a skill challenge, so gaming for best chances of success on every skill check misses out on the opportunity to put participation ahead of "winning". Delays and detours just lead to other opportunities.

Kurald Galain
2011-01-01, 06:49 PM
Thinking about it, the core problem about SCs stems from the notion that everybody must always participate. This assumption is wrong. If as Emerged suggests, the paladin is bad at chasing people, then he should let his teammates do it. 4E is a team game, and the paladin will find a chance to shine later on.

Unfortunately, the SC rules explicitly forbid this. So since he's not allowed to pass, and he can't actually chase, the paladin's best option is to try nonsensical things like religion checks and hope the DM lets him get away with it (which, as Emerged points out, the DM shouldn't, but it's worth a shot).


To summarize my problem with "lawyerly": if you can use your best skill for everything, why are there separate skills to begin with?
How do you tell the difference, though? If my character concept is a bard who likes to bluff his way out of everything, is me always using bluff lawyering or just playing my character?


If I as DM allow you to benefit from the +1 without you ever wishing that +3 was somewhere else? I'm not doing my job well enough.
That doesn't work out in practice, because the +1 will come up all the time (to every single attack roll, and damage roll, and your highest defense, and your best skills); whereas that +3 will come up absolutely never, because the player can actively avoid it. A dump stat doesn't even affect your defenses.

Who cares that the wizard has 14 in strength to give him +3 to athletics? Wizards don't make athletics checks.


If I'm lazy as a DM and don't enforce the sight penalties while we're in the Underdark,
This example doesn't work in practice, because the feat to gain lowlight vision is obviated by cheap equipment (i.e. a sunrod).


When considering open ended choice of skills, remember that the difference between moderate and hard DCs are 7 to 8 points.
Five points, according to the errata document. I'm afraid that invalidates your example: a level-11 fighter will plausibly have +6 to strength and +0 to charisma.

ninja_penguin
2011-01-01, 07:39 PM
This example doesn't work in practice, because the feat to gain lowlight vision is obviated by cheap equipment (i.e. a sunrod).

This is incredibly true. I got a chance to use darkness once on my PCs. Now everybody either has a sunrod, a sunblade, or can just glow because they feel like it.

Oracle_Hunter
2011-01-02, 12:44 AM
Skill Challenges are a tool, not a necessity.

Not everything outside of combat needs to be a Skill Challenge; anything that would run more orderly as a Skill Challenge should be made a Skill Challenge.

In my experience, Skill Challenges work best if:
(1) The DM has thought out the Success and Failure results
(2) The scenario is sufficiently engaging that everyone involved wants to participate
(3) The DM takes care to narrate between dice rolls

Let's take the "Chase the Guy" example.
Instead of just being "a suspicious guy" let's make him "that guy from the wanted poster." Now the PCs will want to catch the guy before he skips town.

Great, now they're running though the crowded marketplace. Ask the Players how their PCs are giving chase. If anyone tries something unusual (e.g. jump rooftop to rooftop) have them roll a check as part of the Skill Challenge. If they succeed (based off of the DMG 42 Easy/Medium/Hard numbers) then add a success and narrate how they are able to close the distance on the baddie - or somesuch. If they fail, narrate how their failure slowed down the other PCs (e.g. they slid off the roof and knocked over a fruit-stand in front of their friends). Listen to see if someone has an idea that might help; if a bunch of people ask to make the same roll remind them that each attempt takes time and focus - someone needs to be watching the bad guy.

If nobody has anything to say, continue with the narration and pick a PC to throw an obstacle at. For example "You're at the lead of the party when you turn a corner and are confronted with a bucking horse being barely restrained by its master." Ask the lead PC what he wants to do - if he waits for someone else to deal with it, then describe the time lost as everyone grinds to a halt while this task is sorted out. And mark a Failure regardless of any rolls made thereafter.

Keep track of the successes and failures. When 2 Failures come up, begin making the narrative seem less hopeful: "you've been running up and down the streets for awhile now and you're no longer certain how far behind the baddie you are." Pace your narration for successes as well; don't make the challenge seem over before it is.
The truth is running a good Skill Challenge is like running a good game - it's an Art more than a Science and you have to present it artfully or the Players will complain about a loss of immersion.

EDIT: Also, look at those DMG 42 DCs. A moderate check at LV 1-3 is only a 10 - you don't need to be an expert to pass one. Skill Challenges aren't designed to require a Master to pass one; everyone does, in fact, have a chance to contribute and a lot of the fun comes from hearing how the pasty Wizard was able to hurdle that last fence to tackle the baddie before he got away :smallbiggrin:

EDIT 2: Electric Boogaloo
Huh, didn't notice that Errata. Seems awful steep, but I'll have to give it a try next time I'm running one.

Shatteredtower
2011-01-02, 02:48 AM
The errata came before the Essentials update, which is consistent with the latest published material, using 8/12/19, rather than 5/10/15, at 1st level, then raising it every single level. As the Dungeon Master's Book notes, this should offer a trained individual with a high ability score somewhere over a 50% chance of success (as high as 95% with a heavily specialised build).

People always seem to ask, "Why should Religion matter in this skill challenge?" when playing alongside characters empowered as divine agents. It shouldn't do the work in a pursuit (no counting toward successes), but why shouldn't it provide guidance (+2 bonus on next next check for interpreting signs) or opportunity (+2 to next Streetwise for assistance from one of similar faith)? If you find this doesn't justify keeping up, try springing related encounters on the divided party and see how popular those are. Stealth and Acrobatics by just one PC steer the quarry, but cornering them should take teamwork.

The X WolF
2011-01-02, 03:26 PM
Yeah I see what you mean having a faith may help you at some times but then why would you ever not have a faith, wouldn't everyone want to have one in an out of character view of things making it rare for someone not to have a faith? I just want my party and players to feel individual and having them all share something makes them more alike. I want them to feel that their decisions in small matters such as faith will not have so much of an effect on the game other than flavor unless I chose to make it a plot point.

The X WolF
2011-01-03, 09:57 AM
Hmmm I have a session this upcoming weekend and I have almost no material to cover I better use all of my study halls to write. I have to plan for scuzzball and Teddy and a couple of our other friends. Anybody else playing soon?