|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 26, 2008 17:50:07 GMT -5
I always got bored playing Mordheim. Now Confrontation, THATS a fantasy skirmish wargame! |
|
anoba
Veteran of the War
Posts: 271
|
Post by anoba on Jun 26, 2008 18:59:04 GMT -5
... Well, a skill is a mechanic in the game. In third edition, the diplomacy skill has an explanation of what that number means. It tells you what a diplomacy roll does explictly. Other games don't have strict tables, but instead provide you benchmarks as to what different levels of a skill mean, by giving common knowledge examples of people who possess that level of the skill or a list of actions that someone with a certain skill level could do. Fourth Edition gives you no indication as to what the skill means. Indeed, with the sliding scale of challenges whereby the DC of tasks increase based on your level, it is extremely difficult to extract what a skill modifier means and is capable of. It only has meaning in relationship to what the DM thinks it means as how it works and is reflected in the campaign is completely under the DM's purview. You can't use it to describe what your character can do or how he would be perceived by his peers, because there's no mechanic or benchmark to go by. ... Ok, I think I get it. Let me try and paraphrase. Some games will tell you something like: "If your Diplomacy is 10 you are average. If your Diplomacy is 15 you are good at smoothing out social conflicts. If your diplomacy is 100 you can convince a paladin to kill himself in honor of his deity." I do like this approach. It's more in line with my preferred style of play. For 3.5 Diplomacy I think the opposite of what you do. I think the rule is very clear but it fails because of its rigidity. Lastly, I agree that the sliding DCs in 4e suck. WotC tried to perfect the level balancing of the game by adding 1/2 level to all the rolls. In general, I think it works well, but as a result they had to do the sliding DC thing for certain checks. It's a glaring kludge. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 26, 2008 19:12:47 GMT -5
The main problem in terms of rigidity with 3rd's diplomacy is that it doesn't take into account the target. Its just as easy to turn a gullible commoner helpful as a Pit Fiend, assuming both start out hostile. This would be solved by having the DC modified by some aspect of the target (hit dice, CR, will save).
The mainest problem is, its really unclear what those attitudes mean. If you're a paladin, what exactly does a helpful Pit Fiend do to you? Kill you quickly instead of torturing you for years?
|
|
anoba
Veteran of the War
Posts: 271
|
Post by anoba on Jun 26, 2008 19:32:50 GMT -5
Lol. According to the 3.5 SRD, a helpful NPC "will take risks to help you" (e.g "protect, back up, heal, aid"). Seems pretty clear. A helpful pit fiend would risk torturing you even while it is engaged in combat with your allies and then it will heal you when its done. |
|
|
|
Post by similar on Jun 27, 2008 15:47:04 GMT -5
Well, from what you posted it says the following: 1) Check vs. DC set by DM 2) Subject to conditional modifiers (none are given) That's basically making it up. I understand that skills will be used in skill challenges, but that's a generic statement that can apply to any skill and doesn't cut to the heart of the matter as to how the diplomacy skill works specifically. If the answer is "It can be used in skill challenges", then how do we differentiate different skills? It sounds like we are back in the realm of total DM discretion. Otherwise known as "make it up yourself." The reason what Deekin posted seems like diplomacy use is quite vague is because he just quoted its write up in the PG. The DMG has the rules for skill checks which is standardized for all skills. The key table is on page 42 of the DMG where it gives specific DCs dpending in weither you class the task as easy moderate or hard and dependent on the level of the target. The conditional modifiers amount to a possible +2 or -2 if there are extenuating reasons to apply one. So a player states their characters aim and if it falls into the broad category of diplomacy the Dm chooses 1 of 3 difficulties which sets the DC. I would get the player to roleplay the attempt and probably assign the conditional modifier if they did an exceptionally good or bad job. All skill checks work the same. Skill challenges are more prolonged encounters where multiple skills can be used. There is a discussion of how to devise them yourself plus quite a few examples. There is an example of how to run a prolonged negotiation with a duke for instance where bluff, diplomacy, intimidate, insight and history skills can have an effect on the outcome. It seems a reasonable system. Of course it is open to individual DM discretion but any system to try and impose rigid rules on social interaction is innevitably going to have a bit of wiggle room. Players can attempt to say or do absolutely anything so there has to be quite a bit of scope. In your Pit Fiend example they are now a level 26 monster. I would think trying to diplomatically persuade them to do something benefical to you would be hard so from the table on pg42 it would be DC 37. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 27, 2008 16:51:45 GMT -5
But see, that doesn't help with either of the two issues I raised.
1) How do we differentiate between skills?
2) How does my skill modifier translate into any presentable fashion?
The lack of benchmarks and sliding scale basically make these things impossible.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. No roleplaying game can cover everything, so sometimes they need to leave things to free-form. The decision to leave things to free-form may indeed be a good design decision depending on what the game is supposed to cover. However, including free-form roleplaying as resolution making system (or a generic random resolution generator that leaves everything to discretion) isn't a good design element: its leaving the work on the purchaser.
If you envision D&D as a skirmish wargame, its no big deal not to include it.
If the words "Roleplaying Game" mean something other then skirmish wargame, you may well be disappointed. Characters do not differentiate themselves from each other significantly over time, they don't get significantly better at doing their tasks over time and they can't be compared in any meaningful way to any real world benchmark (or even to characters of different levels).
|
|
|
|
Post by Deekin on Jun 27, 2008 18:45:34 GMT -5
But see, that doesn't help with either of the two issues I raised. 1) How do we differentiate between skills? By what their used for, and what they can acomplish By what level challenges can you reasonably accomplish There is no sliding scale for Skills. There are various levels of skill difficulty, just like there are various levels of monsters. When does free-form roleplaying come in as resolution making system? Why do you call skill challenges "generic random resolution generator that leaves everything to discretion" when their are clear rules for building them in the DMG? Other than in power selection, skill selection, feat selection, ability score increases, paragon path selection, and epic destiny selection . There is obvously no way to tell any high level characters apart mechanicly  . Since you seem to misunderstand how the skill system works, everyone gets better at everything over time. It's just that the challenges they face tend to go up in difficulty as well. I'll give the point that is difficult to compair them to real world exploits, but that would be a problem anyways, with say, a 10th level fighter being able to break the world record long jump on a regular basis. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jun 27, 2008 19:04:29 GMT -5
Obviously I don't get.
Doesn't the DMG have a table that gives DCs for tasks based on level?
Don't these DCs rise as the PCs skill modifiers rise at a rate that is roughly the same?
How doesn't this create a situation where the PCs don't improve significantly?
Is there any clear indication of how to judge how difficult something is for a level 13 character as opposed to a level 17 character besides the arbitrarily assigned DC that says it is? I mean, this is pretty circular here. A challenge is level X because it was assigned DC Y?
Skill challenges are a "generic random resolution generator that leaves everything to discretion" because that is exactly how they work. Its basically a form letter.
But you can show me I'm wrong. Show me where in the selection it gives mechanics or benchmarks that differentiate the skills in some meaningful fashion.
Also, can jump 30 feet is a meaningful, understandable benchmark. I can envision that. That's why the jump skill works while the diplomacy skill doesn't. And its not that you can't give a good benchmark for diplomacy. If you can't possibly describe it, how can I, the player, possibly portray it in game, enter it into the group's collective imagination or even imagine it myself?
|
|
|
|
Post by Watcherspirit on Jul 4, 2008 18:24:55 GMT -5
Obviously I don't get. But you can show me I'm wrong. Show me where in the selection it gives mechanics or benchmarks that differentiate the skills in some meaningful fashion. If you are really interested, I would love to try and explain. It' s quite a different concept than 3.X or most classic RPG's, but makes for much easier "on the fly" DM'ing (and - imho - for a better game in many cases). But I would need a clearer idea about what it is that fazes you. |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jul 4, 2008 19:07:41 GMT -5
If you are really interested, I would love to try and explain. It' s quite a different concept than 3.X or most classic RPG's, but makes for much easier "on the fly" DM'ing (and - imho - for a better game in many cases). But I would need a clearer idea about what it is that fazes you. Well, it was a rhetorical question. It seems obvious to me that fourth edition has chosen to basically ignore out of combat situations, covering them with catch-all mechanics that basically amount to "make it up, it doesn't matter anyway." Skill challenges and rituals accomplish that nicely. This may indeed make for a better game, but claiming that not having real rules is good game design is sort of lying. You can always do that, either by ignoring rules or just roleplaying during games that don't have rules. I mean, Cutthroat Caverns doesn't have ANY rules for out of combat situations, but I wouldn't call it an excellent roleplaying system because you can freeform with it. |
|
|
|
Post by Watcherspirit on Jul 4, 2008 19:53:28 GMT -5
It seems obvious to me that fourth edition has chosen to basically ignore out of combat situations, covering them with catch-all mechanics that basically amount to "make it up, it doesn't matter anyway." Skill challenges and rituals accomplish that nicely. This may indeed make for a better game, but claiming that not having real rules is good game design is sort of lying. You can always do that, either by ignoring rules or just roleplaying during games that don't have rules. In that case I must admit I do not understand the critique. These points were already addressed above by similar and Deekin  There are rules for skill use. They do now use a unified mechanic (instead of the old hodge-podge of different DC's for each skill) and were even expanded by rules for skill challenges. I can't see any "freeforming" there. Doesn't the DMG have a table that gives DCs for tasks based on level? Don't these DCs rise as the PCs skill modifiers rise at a rate that is roughly the same? How doesn't this create a situation where the PCs don't improve significantly? They do not improve significantly while handling tasks appropriate for their level, yes. But I fail to see that as a negative. After all, if I let people roll, there should be a significant chance of failure or success in the roll. Why else bother? They still improve versus tasks that they would have handled before. V.4 just cuts out the rigmarole of rolling for stuff that was practically guaranteed or impossible, now treating these cases as automatic successes or misses (or fluff and barriers if you prefer the mechanical side  ). This has the nice side-effect of making specialists more "special". In 3.X, at early levels all skill was irrelevant compared to the large impact of the dice roll. Now, for example, a level 6 group will face an average climbing contest at DC 13. Most of them will have an even chance at succeeding. The one training in climbing will have a chance of 75%. Even better, this difference in skill will persist through the levels. Since a level 16 group would face a challenge CD of 18 most members would still be at 50%, the specialist still at 75%. No more "forced skill maxing to stay even with the DC's". If anything, it help the specialists shine without creating undue problems for those with little skillpoints (the old "Mage cast fly on the fighters. They never had the skillpoints to properly train jump or climb" situation). [Note: numbers pulled out of my ***. For example purposes only.] |
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Jul 4, 2008 22:17:39 GMT -5
The first thing I'd like to note is that this system isn't original. Fundamentally, its the same system as PDQ with the aesthetics changed, which is basically a loose framework for freeform roleplaying that gives arbitrary success chances for actions.
However, unlike PDQ, the D&D system is fiddly (you need to constantly readjust things to account for leveling and the dealing with the practically undefined concept of "challenge level"), restrictive (there are specific skills that don't cover the full range of actions that your character can perform), crosswired (the skills have multiple meanings in different arenas of the game that don't necessarily sink up) and inconsistent (the game uses a completely different ruleset for resolving combats). I'm not sure how I'm supposed to be impressed or why I'm supposed to compliment this. In the context of a game that imagines itself as tactical skirmish wargame, it may well be sufficient to cover that kind of stuff. But it isn't innovative or new, it has clear mechanical issues (see the wizards boards for the math) and it only allows for one level of detail.
Basically, you have a game has a very detailed miniatures combat resolution that gives specific rules for well over a thousand slightly different things that can happen and a completely different, minimalistic form letter for out of combat resolution that leaves all the details up to the DM.
Again, how isn't this a tactical skirmish wargame with a generic resolution system slapped on top?
And again, even if this is true, this isn't a condemnation of the quality of the game, just an observation as to its genre.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lin on Oct 15, 2008 10:42:55 GMT -5
I would just like to note that in the latest supplement, Adventurers Vault, their are items that do nothing but provide a simple static bonuses to your character.
So much for "non-essential" items that just provide options.
|
|
. Since you seem to misunderstand how the skill system works, everyone gets better at everything over time. It's just that the challenges they face tend to go up in difficulty as well. I'll give the point that is difficult to compair them to real world exploits, but that would be a problem anyways, with say, a 10th level fighter being able to break the world record long jump on a regular basis.
).