Combat is narrative. It is a violent, highly risky narrative with relatively little talking other than generic grunts, some taunts, and directions to "Go over there" and to "Take THIS!", but it is narrative nonetheless.
Who said it wasn't? The concept of combat is obviously narrative.
You did. You said the mechanics of combat don't help tell the narrative. I said that combat itself is narrative. Your next line indicates that your perception of narrative is...incomplete. I'll address it below.
The combat mechanics help determine the end result of that narrative in a way other than "Good guys win, bad guys lose", while making the journey to that result fun and engaging.
How so? It just determines how many certain mechanical resources you've expended. Its up to you to decide how to narrate what that means.
Narrative is more than the descriptions of how things happen. Narrative is conflict. I don't just mean conflict in the literal sense of "Dwarf vs Orc". The very nature of "Will he hit or will he miss" is conflict. Hitting and missing are in conflict with each other over which one will be the end result of an attempted attack.
The very nature of combat, with it's uncertain conclusion, is narrative. Does it determine how many resources expended? Yes. That is a framework for narrative. The PCs left that combat broken and bruised, taxed to their limit OR they left that combat energized, happy to get their blood pumping by wiping out a few minions, and getting a brisk warm-up before the real fight with the Hooded Queen; and every result in between.
The Skill Challenge system does the same thing for non-combat narrative.
How?
They provide the same framework. Did the PCs completely bowl over the king in negotiations, or were their attempts stymied at every turn? Did they pay attention to his behavior and act accordingly, or did they brazenly try to cower him into submission? Were they lucky and happened to hit upon an argument or avenue of persuasion that appealed to him particularly well?
Frankly, if you can't see the purpose now, after pages and pages and PAGES of people rationally explaining it to you, I doubt you ever will. Have fun with your game, and I wish you the best.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
Umm, that's a sterling example of what I'm talking about. If you decide you don't care if you win, you no longer care about the gameplay mechanic and it ceases to function.
Incorrect.
You may care very strongly about your character "losing" in this case. You may care further as to how and by what degree they lose--whether it is by inches or miles.
You may not genuinely care as to whether your character succeeds or fails, but still care that the situation has a clear resolution, and/or a fair one.
You are now looking for a mechanic that helps you find out what happened in the narrative, not a mechanic that tells you if the player won or not.
"What happened in the narrative" includes but is not limited to whether they won or not.
The mechanic here can still do that by providing you a binary fork between two narrative paths,
It can be as simple as binary, but the mechanics in general do not provide only binary pass/fail results. It uses a numerical system with a range of values for possible outcomes, and supports extraordinary success or failure. (crit/fumble mechanics) Extraordinary success in the fewest amount of rolls possible is not equal to a tense resolution in which success comes on the very edge of failure, thus the system is not binary by nature.
but its a needlessly complicated way of doing so and certainly isn't necessary for the purpose you've put forth.
You have failed to show how it is any more "needlessly complicated" than the other main resolution system in the game, which would be combat.
You maintain combat (which is vastly more complex) is a good resolution system, it also supports degrees of success, and in far more varying shades of such. You maintain that combat's purpose is ultimately narrative in function.
If skill challenges are ultimately narrative in function and objectively less complex than combat, then how are skill challenges a "needlessly complex" system of resolving a narrative function when combat is not?
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
Thinking about it a little, the "trouble" with SC is unskilled characters and their players thinking they can't contribute. While I disagree with that assessment, the immediate solution is to grant more skills.
Actually, I think the problem is that the players are not encourage to develop character who would themselves believe they can contribute in a variety of noncombat situations.
The problem is not that their skills are useless. (This is a change in how I described the problem earlier -- this thread has really changed how I think about the issue.) It's that people have a vision of their character and what he's good at that, even knowing untrained skill checks are likely to be helpful, won't be considered because the game doesn't really encourage (or discourage) making a versatile noncombat character.
If I make a druid who lived in the wilderness all his life and spent most of his time wildshaped, even if my untrained Insight checks would be helpful when my team meets the king, I might not even consider it because the vision of my character is someone who has no comfort in a social situation.
But if I were required to at least describe an approach my character would take in a social situation -- if I had written in my character sheet, "In social situations, Alvaran sits back, carefully watching the other people. His years of watching animal behavior give him some insight into when people are bluffing or concealing important information. He may not speak, but he sees..." Even if I weren't trained in Insight, this would encourage me to make the untrained check anyway. It would be a guidemap as to how my character behaves in a social skill challenge.
I think a mechanic like this could be useful. Almost a checklist of common noncombat encounters and archetypes for each. if you had an archetype on your sheet, you could glance at it and know how your charater will participate, in the same way you look at your class role and know how your character can participate in combat.
I don't know it's needed to give people more skills. I think we need to give people better frameworks.
Basically, roleplay your goddamn character, choose an action your character would take, and roll appropriately. Everything will be fine.
But yes, that is a very good article. It touches on why player perceptions get in the way of a perfectly good system that is designed to let everyone participate. A player won't attempt to succeed because he thinks he can't succeed, when the system totally allows him to, and almost ensures that he will if he just tried.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
While I don't disagree with your assessment (that being higher skill checks to challenge the super trained results in the non-participation of the unskilled), I submit that by giving out more skills to train in, you end up with less unskilled characters.
I don't think it would result in less participation--it may well result in more via altering of player perceptions.
I do think it will result in less success overall.
It's not like they can become even more specialized than before. No one can put training in a skill twice and become uber-specialized.
Very true. But a player who wishes to create an ultimately sociable/intellectual character will still do so unless you pass out so many trained skills that they literally have no way to ignore physical training by sheer volume of skills to assign. Likewise with the reverse.
My assessment was that by having more skills granted overall, players would be more capable of meeting Hard DCs (that are meant for those that are trained), and Easy DC (those that are meant to be for the untrained) would become trivial.
Again this depends highly on how many trained skills you're passing out.
From where I stand, it just means relevant SCs would be harder, though not necessarily more complex (and thus requiring more successes).
Correct, I think i may have phrased my response incorrectly. I did not mean to imply challenges would become more complex, only that those successes required by the complexity would overall be more difficult to achieve.
When in a skill challenge that acutally provides a challenge (meaning the primary checks have Hard DCs), there would be less impluse to make secondary checks, since if you can make a primary check, you will. You've invested in the skill, so you'll use it. Similarly, it lowers the likelihood of players attempting improvised actions (for the same reasons).
When easy becomes "unnecessary," moderate becomes "easy" and "hard" becomes "moderate challenge," where do all the "hard" challenges go? Genuinely difficult, very complex challenges in which your PCs have a small chance of success (as a DM I use these not as a punishment for my players for a likely failure, but as a way to grant them very special boons should they succeed) are edged out by this.
I'm not trying to wholesale shoot you down here.... I'm saying that what you're effectively trying to accomplish would be the same (in effect, although mechanically different in application) as giving all players a +10 bonus to trained checks, a +5 to untrained checks, and eliminating many skill bonuses outside of that (As many would be applied and basically stack past auto-success and thus become mechanically irrelevant) raise easy DCs by 5, raise moderate by 6, and eliminate hard ones.
In short what you'd have is a system where you're telling the players they're better than they were before, but mathematically they're just a tiny hair worse because those bonuses they could have applied to the untrained skills to be better at them (rather than choosing to over-apply them to skills they were already beyond the margin of failure on) are now gone. Also, you'd be raising the difficulty on the "moderate" DCs by a number more than what is in keeping with the bonuses granted.
EDITED: for mathematical accuracy.
If there is one criticism of the 4e skill system, it's that you can't make a character be a total rube or absolute beginner. A character with an average stat and no training is still moderately capable of making easy checks. So the city-slicker warlock is still capable of starting a fire, and scrounging for food because he's an adventurer. If you want to roleplay him outside of his element, and overwhelmed by nature, that's cool. But then why complain he can't participate in a wilderness-related skill challenge if doing so would run contrary to the intended character?
I agree with this.
Aside from going outside of the mechanics you can't make complete idiots, really. on the other hand, even your city slicker warlock has a chimney. Chimneys burn firewood, and you start fires in them pretty much the same way you do in the woods. The idea that a competent and knowledgeable person (of reasonably sound mind) out of their element is utterly helpless is more an issue of perception than fact, anyhow. If you know how to survive on the streets, you can probably do all right in the wilderness and vice versa, as long as you don't panic. Same rules apply:
Stay warm. Build a fire or get insulation. (Whether scrap fabric/paper/trash or leaves)
Stay fed. If you can't forage, hunt and take what you need. Everything else is following this rule, so depending on how high up on the food chain you are, you may or may not want to stay on the beaten path.
If you expect to be sought for, find a safe place and stay there. If not, look for help.
Predators are not help.
There's some pretty strong differences, but as a guy who's been both homeless and an outdoorsman, I can tell you they're a lot more alike than you'd think.
Jackonomicon™ It's not always safe for work, but it's great for play.
Incorrect. Your character may wish to succeed, but you may feel success is not in the cards for your character, whether by narrative decision, objective analysis of their stated mechanical definition, or so on. Using a mechanic for resolution does not imply you wish to win, only that you wish to see the issue resolved in a way you may have input on, but not complete control over.
Umm, that's a sterling example of what I'm talking about. If you decide you don't care if you win, you no longer care about the gameplay mechanic and it ceases to function. You are now looking for a mechanic that helps you find out what happened in the narrative, not a mechanic that tells you if the player won or not. The mechanic here can still do that by providing you a binary fork between two narrative paths, but its a needlessly complicated way of doing so and certainly isn't necessary for the purpose you've put forth.
You seem to be missing the point that in both combat and SC and everything else, it isn't the final outcome resolution that is all that matters. It is each and every swing of the sword, explosion of fire, and heal of the wound that creates the narrative. Every single action you take in combat is a part of the narrative. When I walk 5 squares, that's part of the narrative. It might be a really boring part of the narrative, especially taken alone, but maybe it makes a huge difference in the overall flow of the story, because I walked up behind I guy and tapped him on the shoulder, distracting him just long enough for him to suddenly discover the halfling's dagger hilted between his ribs. Maybe it's a suspenseful moment because nothing has appeared on the map so far and it's like being in the part of the horror movie where the protagonists are walking in an empty ruin and you're just wondering what exact step is going to spring the trap or set off the ambush. Maybe it's me closing with an enemy to swing my sword at him, or backing away before throwing a fireball. Either way, even if it isn't really an important part, a part of the story now is that I walked from here to there. The story doesn't just go 1) The party reaches place where enemies lie in wait. 2) 3) Profit!
Part 2 is where the entire game lies and most of the narrative, in terms of the individual combat.
The same applies to skill challenges. The party arrives at an obstacle or threat of some kind.. eventually they either overcome it or fail to do so.. in between is the entire narrative we came here to work out. The fact that there is a fork here, that things could potentially go bad is a bit of incentive for the party to not be total idiots about deciding who does what and how, just like the threat of TPK is incentive not to have the wizard tank (unless he's some kind of tanking wizard) and the fighter throw AOEs (alchemical bombs?) (unless he's some kind of AOE fighter). The mechanics give some kind of outline that lets you say a priori my character is the kind of guy that can win battles in these ways, and overcome other obstacles in these ways.. and then when you get in an actual battle or encounter another kind of obstacle the narrative created by your individual choices reflects those strengths and weaknesses. They game's framework intentionally gives some clustering that says sneaking goes along with dexterous movements which goes along with precision stabbing with daggers, so that the system is more generous to people who want to be dextrous sneaky precision stabbers than people that want to be sneaky knights in fullplate. But the framework is quite flexible and can make an incredible array of distinct characters, and then use their definitions to guide an endless array of narratives.
Thinking about it a little, the "trouble" with SC is unskilled characters and their players thinking they can't contribute. While I disagree with that assessment, the immediate solution is to grant more skills.
Actually, I think the problem is that the players are not encourage to develop character who would themselves believe they can contribute in a variety of noncombat situations.
The problem is not that their skills are useless. (This is a change in how I described the problem earlier -- this thread has really changed how I think about the issue.) It's that people have a vision of their character and what he's good at that, even knowing untrained skill checks are likely to be helpful, won't be considered because the game doesn't really encourage (or discourage) making a versatile noncombat character.
If I make a druid who lived in the wilderness all his life and spent most of his time wildshaped, even if my untrained Insight checks would be helpful when my team meets the king, I might not even consider it because the vision of my character is someone who has no comfort in a social situation.
But if I were required to at least describe an approach my character would take in a social situation -- if I had written in my character sheet, "In social situations, Alvaran sits back, carefully watching the other people. His years of watching animal behavior give him some insight into when people are bluffing or concealing important information. He may not speak, but he sees..." Even if I weren't trained in Insight, this would encourage me to make the untrained check anyway. It would be a guidemap as to how my character behaves in a social skill challenge.
I think a mechanic like this could be useful. Almost a checklist of common noncombat encounters and archetypes for each. if you had an archetype on your sheet, you could glance at it and know how your charater will participate, in the same way you look at your class role and know how your character can participate in combat.
I don't know it's needed to give people more skills. I think we need to give people better frameworks.
This I agree with. It is undoubtedly helpful to have a vision in your head of what your character would do in common adventuring situations, if only to help fully realize the character in your head. That it would have other benefits is just the icing on the cake.
EDIT: While I don't think a new mechanic is needed, a section on the character sheet (like the checklist you mentioned) would indeed encourage players to think about this sort of stuff, since most players tend to fixate on the sheet, and not the character itself.
It reminds me of World of Darkness. It has a reputation for providing excellent roleplay and characterization. How much of that is because it has "Nature" and "Demeanor" and "Concept" right at the very top of the sheet, next to "Name" and "Clan"?
/End Edit
I submit one thing, though. If you envision your hypothetical Druid to be one who feels out of place in social situations, why be bothered when you feel he's not participating fully in negotiations with the King? Frankly, wouldn't your character be relieved not to have to address him? Or if your character would be the one to speak his mind, even if he lacks social graces, isn't it better for the story and game experience overall if your character attempts, fails, and perhaps causes the negative repurcussions? His flaws have come out and impacted the narrative, just like his merits came out and impacted the narrative when the party was lost in the woods.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
A lot of stuff about the math of a skill challenges if more skills were handed out
I generally agree, especially when it comes to whether or not additional skills would be sufficient to ensure that one has skills in multiple "categories".
Ultimately, this is not a path I would advocate anyway, beyond giving those who have less than 4 trained skills coughcoughfightercough a bonus skill, because...I mean really. Three skills? That's BS.
If there is one criticism of the 4e skill system, it's that you can't make a character be a total rube or absolute beginner. A character with an average stat and no training is still moderately capable of making easy checks. So the city-slicker warlock is still capable of starting a fire, and scrounging for food because he's an adventurer. If you want to roleplay him outside of his element, and overwhelmed by nature, that's cool. But then why complain he can't participate in a wilderness-related skill challenge if doing so would run contrary to the intended character?
I agree with this.
Aside from going outside of the mechanics you can't make complete idiots, really. on the other hand, even your city slicker warlock has a chimney. Chimneys burn firewood, and you start fires in them pretty much the same way you do in the woods. The idea that a competent and knowledgeable person (of reasonably sound mind) out of their element is utterly helpless is more an issue of perception than fact, anyhow. If you know how to survive on the streets, you can probably do all right in the wilderness and vice versa, as long as you don't panic. Same rules apply:
Stay warm. Build a fire or get insulation. (Whether scrap fabric/paper/trash or leaves)
Stay fed. If you can't forage, hunt and take what you need. Everything else is following this rule, so depending on how high up on the food chain you are, you may or may not want to stay on the beaten path.
If you expect to be sought for, find a safe place and stay there. If not, look for help.
Predators are not help.
There's some pretty strong differences, but as a guy who's been both homeless and an outdoorsman, I can tell you they're a lot more alike than you'd think.
Yeah, it really comes down to perception. The unskilled aren't as bad mechanically as players tend to think they are.
Essentials zigged, when I wanted to continue zagging.
If you envision your hypothetical Druid to be one who feels out of place in social situations, why be bothered when you feel he's not participating fully in negotiations with the King?
I don't think people set out to make people who can't participate in a given situation. They make a character and then, after the fact, when presented with a situation they hadn't contemplated, they realize that the character as written, really wouldn't think of anythign to contribute.
The player didn't set out to make a druid with no social skills. He made a druid with a cool wilderness-related background, a bit misanthropic, but fun to play. He just didn't think about his druid being in a social encounter. When the character finds himelf in a social situation, the player then has to contemplate for the first time what he druid would do. And often, the gut response is "Well, I guess he has nothing to do."
He doesn't have to respond that way, but I think for many people it is a very natural response. Also, when put on the spot, people may freeze up -- they didn't have anything for this character when they spent all that time making a background -- now they have to do it right at the game table? That's why I think it's important to have a mechanism by which players don't inadvertently make character with nothing to do in a given situation.
If the game told you, "Here are five common noncombat encounters. For each we give you five archetypes. For each situation, choose one archetype that best describes how your character would act in that situation. Don't worry about whether you've trained in the appropriate skills. Just be true to the character you devised." As long as none of the archetypes are "Wallflower: You are useless in this situation", the player now has a great way to quickly assess what his character should be doing.
