About skills, their systems and how they're used.... (digression from another thread)

[Benoist]

To be fair here, I've never seen the 4e system that way anyway. The scaling DCs to me represent keeping the difficulty static with characters that scale, not making things more difficult for higher levels than for lower ones. Not having extensive experience with 4e, I'm not sure how well it succeeds at this, but to me the system is saying that despite the DC being 12 for a low level character, and higher for the higher level one, the actual chance of the character climbing the wall (in other words, the statistical probability) stays relatively the same.

Well I also have to be fair here: the post you quoted here was in direct response to AM's claim that somehow fixed DCs come from an alternate theoretical universe but that in the "real world" DMs just make up DCs to stick to the PCs' power level:

So it depends. If a character can climb a wall, and you've established a DC for that specific wall, the answer as far as I'm concerned is that DC should be set in stone for all eternity. It's DC 12 at 1st level, it's still DC 12 at 20th level.  So if you go up to the point where you don't have to roll, thats fine.

ok, so that's the theoretical universe. But in reality, when you play, you don't always remember what DCs have been set for which tasks, in whatever places. So that's how you establish a standard baseline DC to stuff that you would normally assign DCs for.

My post wasn't about 4e specifically.
 It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.

[Abyssal Maw]

It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.

Some people like to argue (for days, and bitterly) whether "in reality" Superman is stronger than Captain Marvel. They can point to this issue of this comic or that issue of the other comic, and cite this reference or that one.

The real deciding factor is who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this. Sometimes Superman goofs up or trips on the rug.  Sometimes Captain Marvel (despite the wisdom of Solomon) forgets some simple clue.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday". It comes from football, which is played (mainly) on Sunday. The full adage goes "on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team", meaning that a weaker team still has a chance against a stronger opponent. A related sports phrase is "you have to play the games (to determine the outcome)".

So I think that sometimes the DCs change, because the story is important. Mathematical models will only take you so far.

[Benoist]

The real deciding factor is who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this.

Like I said: different philosophies. My games aren't about "writing stories". You shifting the goalposts between some [fixed DCs = theory; scaled DCs = reality] bullshit to what you're saying now [the story matters moar!] isn't going to change my mind a bit. For me, your post amounts to a load of narrative crap. It's alright. You're obviously having fun playing your story games. By all means, keep doing so. Don't expect me to enjoy the same things as you do, though.

[Sigmund]

Well I also have to be fair here: the post you quoted here was in direct response to AM's claim that somehow fixed DCs come from an alternate theoretical universe but that in the "real world" DMs just make up DCs to stick to the PCs' power level:



My post wasn't about 4e specifically.
 It was about this notion that somehow fixed DCs aren't used in the "real world", which to me is bogus.

I see your point.

[two_fishes]

Say "yes" when? At what point do I actually then engage the skill system. The Take 10/Take 20 rule is "say yes", you're just either missing that or willfully ignoring it. It says, "Say yes until these certain conditions occur, then use the skill system." Honestly, this shit ain't rocket science. I think it might get overlooked because we are conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything all the time. On the flip side, I don't wanna just "say yes". I don't run/play wish fulfillment power-trip shit or bullshit amateur psychotherapy, I run games. I'm not trying to collaborate on a novel, or looking to create some kind of lame ass narrative (even though that might happen anyway sometimes), I'm playing a game. I want a skill system, one that requires rolling sometimes even, just not all the time, or even so often it gets in the way of the other aspects of the game, hence my support for the Take 10/20 rule, and similar rules/guidelines in other games. It's simple, clear, and effective.

The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.

And something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk, it's simply a smaller risk for the more competent characters. And if the consequences are trivial, then no one should have to roll because who cares? Just say yes to everyone, and describe how the less competent characters have to struggle a little bit more.

So my feeling is still, if you have a situation where some characters can skip the roll and take-10, i.e. a situation where the consequences of failure are trivial, then just "say yes" for everyone. If you have a situation where rolling matters, where there is a consequence of failure, then make everyone roll. You say we're conditioned to roll the damn dice for everything. Well I think take-10 is a part of that conditioning. It encourages DMs to slap a DC on every damn thing the PCs might try instead of saving the rolls for when it really matters.

[Abyssal Maw]

Like I said: different philosophies. My games aren't about "writing stories". You shifting the goalposts between some [fixed DCs = theory; scaled DCs = reality] bullshit to what you're saying now [the story matters moar!] isn't going to change my mind a bit. For me, your post amounts to a load of narrative crap. It's alright. You're obviously having fun playing your story games. By all means, keep doing so. Don't expect me to enjoy the same things as you do, though.

I have no interest in converting or convincing you to enjoy anything. I'm not sure people like you really can experience this kind of enjoyment, since gaming for you mostly seems to be a matter of meeting all of the approved goalposts that you have variously set for yourself.

Also, this isn't about "story-games"  and I know your real goal is to somehow associate this with the forgies and somehow tarnish it, but take it from me, we are not talking about the same things-- the forgies aren't wrong because they use the word "story". They are wrong for other reasons. All great games have a great storyline of the things that take place during the game.

If the players get together later and reminisce about "remember that one time when we _____ (fought the dragon, Kyle fell in the pit and the golem fell on top, we had to play chess against the scarecrow king..), thats a story.

The forgies pervert that concept into a very rigid structure that ONLY emphasizes events that answer a central moral question (which they mischaracterize as a "premise") and hopefully revel in some realistic wretchedness on the side so that the players can fully immerse (yes, they do use that word) in misery tourism.

I'm talking about adventure, and at it's core- an adventure is a story. When characters are going places and doing stuff, that's a story. That's what players remember, that's how DM's plan out a nights encounters.

I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters.  Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out.

And I guess, "answering moral questions" probably  isn't exactly off the platter but it definitely isn't a priority, and certainly doesn't define what gets to be called a story and what doesn't.

[LordVreeg]

Some people like to argue (for days, and bitterly) whether "in reality" Superman is stronger than Captain Marvel. They can point to this issue of this comic or that issue of the other comic, and cite this reference or that one.

The real deciding factor is who is writing the story. Because Superman and Captain Marvel aren't real. And it would probably be a good idea for people to just realize this. Sometimes Superman goofs up or trips on the rug.  Sometimes Captain Marvel (despite the wisdom of Solomon) forgets some simple clue.

Have you ever heard the phrase "Any given Sunday". It comes from football, which is played (mainly) on Sunday. The full adage goes "on any given Sunday, any team can beat any other team", meaning that a weaker team still has a chance against a stronger opponent. A related sports phrase is "you have to play the games (to determine the outcome)".

So I think that sometimes the DCs change, because the story is important. Mathematical models will only take you so far.

Every game and gamemaster is different.
To me, consistency in the game world forces more in-game logic.  If the world is changing because of the story, the players will find the world less believable.  I don['t care about the modelling.

[Abyssal Maw]

Every game and gamemaster is different.
To me, consistency in the game world forces more in-game logic.  If the world is changing because of the story, the players will find the world less believable.  I don['t care about the modelling.

Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?

[Benoist]

Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?

Shifting the goal posts again.

[LordVreeg]

Why do you assume that if the number to a skill check changes that means the world has changed?

Well, that is a good, honest question.

To me, the DC means 'difficulty class'.  this defines how hard a task is, based on the physics engine/ruleset of the GM.  Lifting an object with a fixed weight is an example, like a dumbell.  If it gets harder to lift, something has changed.

[Justin Alexander]

The thing is, the GM has complete control over the game world. So the rules say, "A ledge that is a foot wide requires a DC 12 check" (note: I have no idea if that number is accurate, I pulled it out of my ass for the sake of argument), but the GM has control over whether the ledge is a foot wide, 5 feet wide, or an inch wide. So the take-10 rule is still just the GM either saying yes or demanding a role, it's just providing some parameters to describe the world when he wants to demand a roll.

This assumes that the GM is creating that ledge with that specific character's skill bonus in mind.

And something is still bugging me about take-10, because it's not "say yes" to everybody, just "say yes" to some people. But if there are consequences to a failed roll, then everyone should have to roll, regardless of the character's skill number--everyone should be subject to the risk,

You seem to be slipping in "everyone should be subject to the risk" as an unexamined premise. Why should that be true, exactly?

Let's take a non-skill example: One of the PCs is currently using boots of flying. Now, a pit trap opens up under the PCs. The guy who's flying is obviously immune to the risk of the pit. Does that mean that the other PCs shouldn't fall into the pit?

[Justin Alexander]

If the players get together later and reminisce about "remember that one time when we _____ (fought the dragon, Kyle fell in the pit and the golem fell on top, we had to play chess against the scarecrow king..), thats a story.

(...)

I'm talking about adventure, and at it's core- an adventure is a story. When characters are going places and doing stuff, that's a story. That's what players remember, that's how DM's plan out a nights encounters.

Game sessions are made up of a series of events. Any series of events can be turned into a story. Which means that any game session can be told as a story.

But that doesn't mean that you need to prep plots.

From Don't Prep Plots:
   If you're GMing a roleplaying game, you should never prep a plot.

Everyone's tastes are different. These matters are subjective. What works for one person won't necessarily work for another. Yada, yada, yada.

     But, seriously, don't prep plots.

     First, a definition of terms: A plot is the sequence of events in a story.

     And the problem with trying to prep a plot for an RPG is that you're attempting to pre-determine events that have not yet happened. Your gaming session is not a story -- it is a happening. It is something about which stories can be told, but in the genesis of the moment it is not a tale being told. It is a fact that is transpiring.

The mistake you're making is assuming that the only way an interesting story can be told about a gaming session is if the GM prepares that story in advance. In my experience, the exact opposite is true.

[two_fishes]

This assumes that the GM is creating that ledge with that specific character's skill bonus in mind.

Not really. It assumes the GM wants to demand a skill roll and slap a DC on it. He can demand any DC he likes and then look to the rules for a description of that DC.

However I do think that, yeah, any good GM is almost certainly tailoring the DCs he presents to the skills of his players. When the game text applies specific colour to specific DCs it is simply him some idea what those challenges should look like.

You seem to be slipping in "everyone should be subject to the risk" as an unexamined premise. Why should that be true, exactly?

Let's take a non-skill example: One of the PCs is currently using boots of flying. Now, a pit trap opens up under the PCs. The guy who's flying is obviously immune to the risk of the pit. Does that mean that the other PCs shouldn't fall into the pit?

Okay, that's a valid question. You could say that one of the things a player is buying when they spend their skill points is exemption from some risks. Looking at it that way removes some of my objection to take-10, definitely.

[Narf the Mouse]

@Justin: Quoting Abyssal Maw: "I still think stories matter. What happens during an adventure matters. Characterization, turn of events, action, conflict, all of that stuff matters, it all draws interest and generates excitement. And it isn't "written" by any particular single person, or even "told" by the DM and handed down to the players. It's participative. It happens as the adventure plays out. "

He may be wrong, but at least address what he's actually said.

[Justin Alexander]

However I do think that, yeah, any good GM is almost certainly tailoring the DCs he presents to the skills of his players.

That would be rather difficult in my current campaign, which features more than three dozen PCs of radically varying power levels all exploring the same chunk of territory.

Which is an extreme example, but the same logic applies to any group of PCs with disparate abilities.

And more generally, what I'm talking about is a fundamental divide in design philosophy:

(1) You think that the ledge should be designed so that the PCs can climb it. If it's too difficult for the PCs to climb, why is the ledge there?

(2) I think the ledge is a ledge. If the PCs are skilled enough to climb it, then they can climb it. If they aren't, then they can't. If they're somewhere inbetween, then it's risky to climb on that ledge.

This is similar to the dynamic scaling in Oblivion: When the ledges of the universe scale themselves to the PCs who happen to be looking at them, it flattens the game world.

An unclimbable ledge is a goal that can be achieved. A ledge that some can climb and others can't creates a strategically complex environment (particularly once you add NPCs into the same environment).

I suspect, based on what you've said in this thread so far, that you're likely to say that all of those things require you tailor the DCs to match the PCs.

And I'm saying that they don't: I just designed a ledge. I don't know how the PCs are going to use it. They might ignore it. They might climb on it. They might send a scout across it while the others circle around or wait for a rope to be thrown back. They might cast a spell so that they can fly past it. They might use a stone shape to widen the ledge.