|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 11:02AM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Players who do not like SC often shut down during this part of the module making the encounter subject to one or two players. This is a problem player scenario and should be treated as such. It would be like one or two players swooping in and killing all of the monsters so no one else can have fun doing the same. Basic courtesy to the others at the table is needed. 50% of the players you meet love RP and properly presented SCs give them this so help out and don't shut down. Make sure you have one combat related skill, one social and one athletic. IF the correct DCs are used you will almost always have a 50% chance of success at your appropriate level without any bonuses or penalties to any check.
That's wonderful, except that for your party to have even a 50% chance of successfully completed the skill challenge, you need to have much more than a 50% chance to succeed on each individual check. For a 50% chance of successfully completing a complexity 6 skill challenge, you need a 75% chance of succeeding on each individual skill check. For a 50% chance of completing a complexity 12 skill challenge, you need an 85% chance of success on each individual skill check. (And rolling one attempt at 50% hurts the party's odds more than automatically succeeding helps them). Rolling a skill check in a skill challenge at 50/50 odds is like dropping a damage and dazed until the end of your next turn effect on the whole party in order to catch one monster--you can call it "role-playing" but you're actively hurting the party by doing so.
As another issue, I would dispute your contention that players who dislike skill challenges are problem players. I detest skill challenges. They are a terrible mechanic to flesh out a bad concept and don't even succeed at fleshing out the concept. The math actively discourages player participation and the appropriate strategies for success require players to step back from what might otherwise be an immersive experience and engage in ridiculous gimicks in order to finnagle a way to use skills that they are good at. (It also encourages thinking individually about how you can find a way to use a skill that you are good at rather than players working together to overcome a concrete problem in the campaign world). But that doesn't mean I disrupt the table during a skill challenge. Skill challenges are the problem, not the players.
If you insist on carrying the "combat monster" analogy over to skill challenges, the analogous player is not the guy who detests skill challenges and does his best to minimize the pain of participation but rather the character who attempts to dominate the skill challenge by rolling all the checks at + a bazillion or (perhaps more realistically) finding some ridiculous way to shoehorn his +57 arcana skill into every challenge whether or not it is appropriate.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 11:10AM
#52
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
If the party is full of people that are new to the game, new to 4e, or simply there for a good time they start trying to take cover, dodge, throw shields over the dart slots, all sorts of thoughtful and interesting options! Very rewarding for players and DMs.
I gave up on this kind of thing after the fourth DM said something like, "OK, you pushed the clay scout onto the trigger for the (unactivated) crossbow turrets and the crossbow turrets start shooting... at you (they magically sense intruders and shoot at them once activated." Or "You can't put a crate in front of the holes that shoot the darts. Roll a thievery check. Oh, you don't have that? Sucks to waste your standard action."
I've had exactly one DM who was willing to consider creative solutions to traps in all of the LFR games I've played and I'd lay even odds that he was only considering the creative solutions because they were traps he had added to the mod via DM empowerment to make it more challenging.
Maybe this falls under the: More good DMs section of "what do players want" but more realisticly, it falls under the "good rules for traps" section.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 2:19PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
More Pulp. Start with "roll initiative" more. Skill Challenges that are wild set pieces. Chandeliers to swing on. Open Endings.
More Puzzles, although fewer puzzles that assume the player has read every single FR book twice. But traps/locks that are puzzles are an old staple that seems to have gone out of fashion, and I don't understand why.
Traps. Please make sure that Thievery checks work WITH Dwarven Lockpicks (a big hammer) when disabling traps. Multiple parts to disable? Successful Thievery checks do (lots of) damage, so the halfling and the Dwarf are fundamentally attacking the same resource? My Dwarven Hexhammer should not be the most effective person at disabling traps... but usually is.
Traps. Make them more predictable, and easier to avoid instead of defeat. Always attacks in This line/square/burst. Goes off on that initiative. When it's easy to understand it's easier for the DM to figure out what happens when players do something creative. When it's more constrained, it's easier for the players to figure out those constraints and work around them.
More interactive skill Challenges: I've noticed some are basically "roll random checks until you succeed" and some are "Bob hates Alice, because of X." and take 3 pages. More of the second type please, less of the first.
More Intimidate. I hate it when a skill is an auto-failure. I've also found it's a symptom of the "skill challenge is a random series of checks" setup.
More good controllers, BESIDES the goblin hexer. I love what he does to battles, I hate how frequently I've seen him.
More Pulp. I might have said that already. I should feel like I did something more interesting than clear out a goblin cave. Again.
Moar Cowbell.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 2:29PM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Nov 23, 2003
|
If you insist on carrying the "combat monster" analogy over to skill challenges, the analogous player is not the guy who detests skill challenges and does his best to minimize the pain of participation but rather the character who attempts to dominate the skill challenge by rolling all the checks at + a bazillion or (perhaps more realistically) finding some ridiculous way to shoehorn his +57 arcana skill into every challenge whether or not it is appropriate.
Or, the bard. +5 Cha, +5 Trained, +5 Words of Friendship = +15 at 1st level. The 1-4 High Tier fixed DC is 16, and Diplomacy is almost always a listed skill.
"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 11:14PM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Dec 16, 2005
|
Can I speak up and say that I don't mind clearing out the goblin cave. However, if I do clear out the goblin caves, I want: A. Bad goblins. I mean no holds barred bad. There should be festering heads on pikes with maggots crawling out their rotting skin at the edge of their encampment. There should be a pile of discarded baby bones in their kitchen. And if there is a goblin to talk to, the goblin should be a would-be assassin who is just like the current chief except that he failed to sneak up and stab the current chief in the back so now he is nailed to a tree outside the encampment and the vultures are consuming him. (If you want to talk, you can chase off the vultures and find some no-surge healing to bring him to consciousness, but he will stab you in the back in the end). Forget about the "goblins are people too" nonsense and make the players want to slaughter the lot of them. (One of the things that gives pulp stories like Conan or Solomon Kane their visceral punch is that they rarely try to humanize the villains; in many cases Howard went out of his way to dehumanize the adversaries). B. Goblins. The encounters can have different kinds of goblins--there shouldn't be a hexer in every fight. And there should be other critters mixed in--some goblins riding wolves, an ochre jelly stored in a barrel that they roll at the PCs, a fiendish snake companion or soulrider demon with the evil goblin priest, etc. And there should probably be some hazards integrated into the fights to keep them interesting. But, if I'm clearing out the goblin caverns, I want to fight goblins, not bats. C. An actual map of the goblin caves so that we can come up with our plan of assault and the goblins will react to that plan. Is there a back entrance? Is it guarded? If we assault the guards at the gate, how long will it take reinforcements to arrive? If we decide to wait for nightfall, will the goblin scouts return? Site based adventures like goblin caves are a great opportunity to give players freedom. Within the limited confines of "clean out the goblin caves" you can throw away the tracks and leave the locomotive out of it.
More Pulp. I might have said that already. I should feel like I did something more interesting than clear out a goblin cave. Again.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 23, 2009 - 11:32PM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
That's wonderful, except that for your party to have even a 50% chance of successfully completed the skill challenge, you need to have much more than a 50% chance to succeed on each individual check. For a 50% chance of successfully completing a complexity 6 skill challenge, you need a 75% chance of succeeding on each individual skill check. For a 50% chance of completing a complexity 12 skill challenge, you need an 85% chance of success on each individual skill check. (And rolling one attempt at 50% hurts the party's odds more than automatically succeeding helps them). Rolling a skill check in a skill challenge at 50/50 odds is like dropping a damage and dazed until the end of your next turn effect on the whole party in order to catch one monster--you can call it "role-playing" but you're actively hurting the party by doing so.
The amount that I was quoting was on a skill check that you have no bonus at all for, an untrained skill. If you take a trained skill which every character has at least three you have an 80% chance of success. If you add even a +1 due to a good stat you get an 85% chance to succeed. I don't see how a party of characters at appropriate DCs can fail a skill challenge. To give an example so I am clear the DCs for level 1-3 are 5/10/15. Skill challenges are built on moderate DCs so we are looking at 10 or higher. If I have a +5 from training I succeed on a 5 or higher die roll. You don't need to have plus bazillion. That was my point. People don't realize this. When you build a character you need to look at balancing your states and creating a character that can work well in SCs as well as picking out powers that make him good in combat. Too many people build PCs that are not balanced.
As another note allot of players have a +9 on certain skills this gives them an auto success on moderate DCs and can immensely speed up the SC and keep the flow without the need of dice rolls. I know a player in our game that has a diplomacy that gives him this. The GM and our players usually just sit around and RP during SCs with very little dice rolls due to having players that have given themselves a useful skill that allows them to auto-succeed in a SC with that skill. If we need something else we roll it and usually we need a 6-7 on the die to get past that roll.
Another note is in a 5 player game which a 5 complexity challenge is suitable for each player only needs about 2 success a piece to defeat it. A couple of players get 3 but we rarely get more than two failures. Most LFR mods have inappropriate DC and that was the point about writing the SCs better or GMs need to use DME to change them back to something that will make them more enjoyable by the players.
As another issue, I would dispute your contention that players who dislike skill challenges are problem players. I detest skill challenges. They are a terrible mechanic to flesh out a bad concept and don't even succeed at fleshing out the concept. The math actively discourages player participation and the appropriate strategies for success require players to step back from what might otherwise be an immersive experience and engage in ridiculous gimmicks in order to finagle a way to use skills that they are good at. (It also encourages thinking individually about how you can find a way to use a skill that you are good at rather than players working together to overcome a concrete problem in the campaign world). But that doesn't mean I disrupt the table during a skill challenge. Skill challenges are the problem, not the players.
Once again I do not think I was clear. Players who hate skill challenges and therefore refuse to participate in them are problem players and that is a problem of the player’s bias and not the system. Mathematically as shown, SCs are well within a player’s ability to accomplish and if presented correctly by the GM will make RP more enjoyable where there would not be any RP if there was not a system for it. This is a problem on three fronts not just one.
You should read the ruling skill challenges articles they are very good and helped me start to see that the SCs presented in the DMG where just one way that they can be done. I hope to see more on this and the system on this grows in DMGII. Try not to close your mind to the system but try to see how it could be used to fulfill the RP that is needed. I remember in 3.5 Living campaigns that I played in that RP was just a few catch phrases and ridiculous monologuing done by NPC. I am glad that there is more RP in the current modules being ran and would hate to see it phased out to go back to the dice fiestas of yester year.
If you insist on carrying the "combat monster" analogy over to skill challenges, the analogous player is not the guy who detests skill challenges and does his best to minimize the pain of participation but rather the character who attempts to dominate the skill challenge by rolling all the checks at + a bazillion or (perhaps more realistically) finding some ridiculous way to shoehorn his +57 arcana skill into every challenge whether or not it is appropriate.
I must reword myself to try to get my point across because I seemed to have failed. a problem player in combat, of which a combat monster is one, makes the combat session unenjoyable to the other players at the table. The same can be said about players who gripe about how stupid SCs are and refuse to participate. Creative thinking in SCs should be rewarded, I usually lower the DC to low and this usually gives them a auto success.
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal.
Red
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 25, 2009 - 10:04PM
#57
|
- Dragon Slayer
- If only he would apply himself
- Dammit Jim, this is Star Trek, not D&D!
Date Joined:
Jan 31, 2006
|
Actually, DME is exactly supposed to be handled in this manner. You are not changing the adventure. You are changing how it is run to make things more fun for the players. One thing though, before you decide to allow a skill challenge to replace a fight, make sure the majority (preferably all) players like it and also take a good look at the impact the change is going to have on the pacing of the adventure.
Well, except for the massive difference in XP unless you make the complexity 5 and the level equal.
It is doable, but it takes work. As another poster noted, having the "fight beholder" or "12-success skill challenge" will not make for a decent choice.
However, there are other options for an author (not on the fly). The author could provide plot points to suggest the beholder is open to negotiation, but to suggest it will fly into a rampage and go after the party. Then you place a chute leading into the darkness, plus the room with the beholder. Take the chute, leads you on a challenge to find an item the beholder wants. Again, you need the plot to make it work (it is a beholder seeking arcane tomes, find the right tome, etc.). It can be done... but it is a lot of work. It is certainly enough work that as an author you can't do it but every now and then, as something special.
I'm afraid the XP difference will likely make this a difficult thing to offer directly. Instead, you offer similar things to players as choices (choice of the beholder or some monsters and a skill challenge as you take the trap-laden corridor with the puzzle).
Follow my blog and Twitter feed with Dark Sun campaign design and DM tips! Dark Sun's Ashes of Athas Campaign is now available for home play (PM me with your e-mail to order the campaign adventures).
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 26, 2009 - 2:27AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Aug 18, 2007
|
I'm going to adress this a little out of order..
A complexity 1 challenge only needs 2 successful checks and a complexity 2 only needs 4, this should be easy to make at the correct DCs.
Please read the update. Complexity 1 means 4 Successes before 3 Failures.
This is why we are seeing Complexity 3 challenges so often - at level they equate to 3 monsters (ie most of an encounter). The problem is they require 8 successes before 3 failures.. well sometimes that's the problem....
Players who do not like SC often shut down during this part of the module making the encounter subject to one or two players.
I do this when I play my level 6 Cleric. Religion +8, Insight +11, Heal +11, Arcana +8.
So here is what happens. If I talk IC I get asked for a Diplomacy or Intimidate check. She has a +3 for either check. So typical DC is 15 so I need a 12 or better to have a hope, the "That'll Do" card I have will not get a success. So the best bet to ensure I don't mess up the skill challenge is to just sit there and shut up. If I can see a way to use one of her good skills I will, but mostly nope, its to high a risk of causing a failure, and increasing the chance of all the players suffering as a result. So I turn off.
In comparison my Sorcerer has a +9 Diplomacy and +11 Bluff, when I play him I will talk in skill challenges, because the chances are good I will get the successes that are needed.
GMs who do not like skill challenges present them as a grouping of skill checks that must be made. *snip* My second time through WATE 1-1 was like this most of the players didn't know they had done a SC and they really enjoyed it. It as really well done and part of what I am saying here comes from that game.
Now this is the crux of the matter, a well DMed Skill Challenge is an enjoyable experience for everyone. A poorly DMed Skill Challenge is bad for everyone. I've seen both, and played both. Where the module has one or more skill challenges as critical elements the difference to the enjoyment of the module is huge.
This is why I want Complexity 1 challenges. They are shorter and easier to manage for both DMs and players.
Its not because I dislike skill challenges, in fact I love them, its because they are so easily swayed by the DM and that I cannot control.
------------
On a different front I have twice run into the "this is a skill challenge you cannot fight" situation, and both times I've had to utterly discard IC interaction as a result.
Where people are asking for Skill Challenges as a replacement for fights as an option I want to see the "because there are lots of low level guys you have to find an alternate solution" skill challenges to have a combat alternative with the same xp value (even if the monsters are worth more, its a failed skill challenge its a perfectly viable replacement).
Minions are there to represent random villager or whatever mob there is, heck there is a Zombie Mob monster to use for ideas. Mobs are basically Large or Huge Swarms, its not impossible to generate mechanics for them, and put them with some other creatures to pad things out.
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 26, 2009 - 2:07PM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
I'm going to adress this a little out of order..
Please read the update. Complexity 1 means 4 Successes before 3 Failures.
This is why we are seeing Complexity 3 challenges so often - at level they equate to 3 monsters (ie most of an encounter). The problem is they require 8 successes before 3 failures.. well sometimes that's the problem....
I have, sorry I forgot to double the number.
I do this when I play my level 6 Cleric. Religion +8, Insight +11, Heal +11, Arcana +8.
So here is what happens. If I talk IC I get asked for a Diplomacy or Intimidate check. She has a +3 for either check. So typical DC is 15 so I need a 12 or better to have a hope, the "That'll Do" card I have will not get a success. So the best bet to ensure I don't mess up the skill challenge is to just sit there and shut up. If I can see a way to use one of her good skills I will, but mostly nope, its to high a risk of causing a failure, and increasing the chance of all the players suffering as a result. So I turn off.
In comparison my Sorcerer has a +9 Diplomacy and +11 Bluff, when I play him I will talk in skill challenges, because the chances are good I will get the successes that are needed.
I had this problem for a while and may still be having this problem in the current games but I think I solved it. You never really know. What I did is when I ask for a diplomacy roll I preface it with are you trying to be diplomatic with blah or are you trying to help with someone else giving a few additional comments here and there. Those with the diplomacy skill usually will go for the roll and those without still get to help but aid the main user. They get to RP and they get to roll to aid in someone getting a success. I usually will allow one player to aid another in this fashion but unlike normal aid attempts I only allow one or two people to do this. For those who don't have diplomacy they may still get in the conversation but they may use a knowledge skill to find relevant information that the NPC may not know about or may not think you know about this way they get to talk but they roll a knowledge skill and earn a success for the team. I have even allowed alternate check to aid main checks of a differing category to allow this interaction where everyone feels they are helping to complete the SC. for example a athletics check to aid intimidate or thievery to help an arcane user discover the properties of an arcane trap. All in all I still think it is a team effort and should have the team as a whole do something to complete the encounter. The other lesson here is if the PCs come up with alternate ways to use skills and such let them don't be restricted on the SC since it can downplay the fun of the encounter.
This is why I want Complexity 1 challenges. They are shorter and easier to manage for both DMs and players.
Very good point and one I did not think of.
Its not because I dislike skill challenges, in fact I love them, its because they are so easily swayed by the DM and that I cannot control
Again excellent reasoning and I can now see the benefit of less complex SCs.
All in all I think 4E is the DMs edition because allot of the focus I see is that the rules require more DM interaction and adjudication, which I feel is a good thing. DMing 4th ed can be very rewarding there is much more room for improvement on the DMs ability to present the game. I look forward to reading DMGII.
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal.
Red
|
|
|
|
4 years ago ::
Apr 26, 2009 - 2:13PM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Sep 25, 2006
|
I gave up on this kind of thing after the fourth DM said something like, "OK, you pushed the clay scout onto the trigger for the (unactivated) crossbow turrets and the crossbow turrets start shooting... at you (they magically sense intruders and shoot at them once activated." Or "You can't put a crate in front of the holes that shoot the darts. Roll a thievery check. Oh, you don't have that? Sucks to waste your standard action."
Wow, Elder that is something that is right up with what I am saying. DMs need to realized that it is not necessary to go strait by the rules set. Creative players should be encouraged or they turn into zombie players. My job as a DM is that of an entertainer. I love seeing what my players come up with and though I will be fair I do feel that creativity should be rewarded. We play in a creative game.
It's a sad state of affairs when DMs measure their success in total party kills and players in the damage they deal.
Red
|
|
|
