Skill Based PCs

[dergon darkhelm]

Morning --

First I want to say that I don't think Mr. D and I are really on any opposite side an argument here. And team Helm isn't taking any offense. To drive that point home:

Many more traps in the dungeons that players are likely to visit when they are /without/ a DM.

Agree

Locked doors of varying difficulty in those same monster lairs

Agree

Chests with locks, you either bash them and probably lose whats in there or you take a lockpick with you

Agree

Secret doors

Agree

statics that you can get only with the right skills

Agree .....with a caveat. Many tasks/statics could be done through use of various skillsets or differing approaches. I favor both specialized skill statics and statics *and* statics where different approaches can be taken to achieve success. (instead of just "kill the bugbear", charm him and convince him to leave, convince him to leave through diplomacy, sneak up on him while he's sleeping and coup-de-grac him, etc)

social interactions and skills aren't really rewarded, you don't get to talk out more coins for doing the same haul in a longer time

Agree. Although I don't think I am the mentioned "charisma-obsessed player from ages past" I have in the past and do now continue to advocate the incorporation of charisma based skills into many more situations. Nearly every interaction with an NPC could considered a chance to insert a charisma based check. I think I have done a good job myself of RPing my PC's poor CHA skills, trying to phrase things in such a way as to show the ineffectiveness in diplomacy of unyielding zealousness.



I have a couple of years of ALFA NWN1 with a nearly entirely skill based PC. I understand the frustrations of having 12 ranks of bluff/persuade and only being asked to use it twice in game (thanks Darrenhfx and Damart ). I understand the frustration of having a 17 search that is infrequently utilized when loot drops just appear at the end of an encounter.


But I am also strongly alongside Rotku in his notion of not telling DMs how to DM. And the issue isn't really that the DMs don't know how. These are all smart people most of them with many years at tabletop and/or online with for the most part a good familiarity with the rulesset. But when we DM (I use the inclusive "we" to include my past life in ALFA and at the tabletop) there are times that rules get fudged. I have all confidence that current DM team does so in a manner that is meant primarily to improve the enjoyment of their players in the limited time they have to play. And that's the bottom line from my perspective.

[Ithildur]

One of the things that drew me to ALFA and made it distinctive from many other PWs was the attention given to skill usage by players and DMs during ALFA1. It's one of the elements that made alfa feel closer to a pnp/canon gameplay experience than default nwn1 or other PWs out there. Watching some alfa1 sessions, I realized that high skill PCs are often just as valuable or sometimes even more so than the warriors/clerics.

I hate to sound like someone who doesn't like change or progress; that's not the case. I don't think devolving to a style of play that's basicly "some red monsters spawned there, let's go click on it" is progress however. I think we could use more injection of old school skillchecks and RP based around things like dealing with a chasm to cross, a trap to overcome, finding a hidden cache of loot, convincing an NPC to do xyz, etc. Most of these work best with a DM who can handle such things skillfully, but some static content would be nice too.

I'm with Mr D and others on this one; I also play a non skilled PC currently, but strongly feel that skilled guys should have opportunites to let their skills shine, just as much if not more often than the fighters etc get to shine during combat: unless our vision has shifted somewhere along the way, ALFA is not primarily about being able to kill stuff. If we wish to uphold that vision then extra work is required to bend the default game engine to do stuff other than provide things to kill and ways to kill better. With a creative DM on this is more easily doable on the fly; without a DM on, builders must provide opportunities like the ones mentioned above which takes a good deal of work and some ingenuity (or at least borrowed content/scripts). My suggestion primarily would be to encourage DMs to require more skillchecks, and secondarily ask builders to keep this in the back of their minds as they toil away with their hard work.

As I recall, alfa was always more about great DMs and players than great builders anyway; we didn't have tons of scripted stuff on SD, but it was a great server because of the DMs and players. Plus nwn1 didn't have monsters set by default to be retarded/blind/deaf so you HAD to have a skilled scout just to keep the party alive.

One last thought: as much as I am a believer in the "DMs make the final call' rule of thumb, I would submit that 'not telling dm's how to dm' only goes so far. DM's ideally follow some guidelines/rules of thumb just as players are expected to. Even in pnp campaigns this is true; if I was a player that had a highly stealthy/skillful rogue and the DM allowed fighters in full plate to constantly walk up to monsters and surprise them or otherwise never called for the skills I'd invested in, I'd go find another campaign to play in eventually.

[oldgrayrogue]

IMO the issue here is more of an imbalance in the static content that favors "warrior based" and cleric classes as opposed to skill based classes. That imbalance creates an OOC incentive for players to play those classes as opposed to skill based classes. Players will still roll up skill based PC's because we love the style of play, but without a DM, rogues for example, are only useful as scouts. Rangers can scout just as well, and as Kiyoti points out get combat benefits as well. Although skill based classes are played, because the static content favors warriors/clerics those classes can be much more successful in terms of wealth and level advancement than skill based classes.

In terms of adding content that attempts to address the static content imbalance for skill based PCs, a big thumbs up to all of Mr. D's suggestions. As it stands now on TSM you don't need a rogue at all to go dungeon crawling. I would prefer an environment where there is a high chance of party death without one. But I play a rogue so, heh.

I especially like the suggestion of secret doors/areas only accesible upon a successful skill check. This can be implemented in many ways beyond a simple "search" or "spot" check. Magical doors or "door wardens" with triggered dialogue that requires conversation based skill checks to overcome is one way that comes to mind.

More "underground" (not Underdark but that would be nice too) areas for skill based PC's to frequent would be nice as well. On another PW I played on we had a "fence" that occupied a back room in a seedy tavern. The only way you could access the store was to learn about it through convo skill checks with the barkeep then perform a successful lockpick on the backdoor to prove you were "one of the boys" so to speak. Success gave you a store with rogue and "skill based" goodies that others did not have access to, and the ability to sell stolen goods that other merchants would not buy. Backroom merchants, gambling halls, "sewer" hideouts in big cities that only rogues etc can access would all serve to add value to the play of skill based classes.

[HEEGZ]

I think a lot of the issues being raised here directly correlate to the ratio of DMs/builders to players. I can encourage our builders to add more traps and locks, and I can also encourage our DMs to use more traps and locks as well. I think the skills are being utilized by DMs during events, though their actual use may be few and far between. I would hope that players are taking skills based on the IC reasons of the PC and potential use down the road. There is no guarantee that builders and DMs will make use of those skills, but you could send them a PM of what you have in mind to see if they are interested in utilizing it.

If anyone knows any talented builders or DMs, please gauge them for interest in adding new content or coverage. Also, if you are interested in DMing or building please drop me a PM or catch me on IRC for a chat. Lots of good ideas and discussion going on in this thread, keep it up.

[Mulu]

I know the vault has systems for random traps for NWN1. I haven't looked for NWN2, but that would certainly make rogues useful, if not required! Dungeons without traps just doesn't seem like D&D. If the humanoid caves near Rivermoot had been thoroughly trapped, as they probably should be, that would have avoided the issue of fighters cleaning them out on a daily basis.

[Brokenbone]

PvE means numbers other than those found in your skill entries, usually count the most. Raw STR. AB. High INT/WIS etc. for spell DCs or bonus slots. Hitpoints. Stuff like that. Some skills may aid in PvE, relating to detecting stuff (like not stomping a trap!), but that's a small subset to be honest.

DM'd play is where the whole character sheet (inclusive of skills, and "dump stats" like 7 CHA) can matter.

That said, if you've prospered in PvE (levels, power, influence among groupies, whatever), you're likely to end up a focal point in DM'd play anyhow, so I guess keep doing what you're doing, but make sure one or more of your flunkies as a condition of their employment of taking your table scraps, learns a skill or two! Johnny Kickass (Fighter , can hire Petey Smoothtongue (Bard 2), Rodney Egghead (Wiz 3), Stella Sharpeye (Rgr 4), etc. to cover off his weak points of diplomatic, knowledge and detection skills. Maybe this still means "everybody wins", although not necessarily equally. Games though aren't about equality, choices in play do influence results. Counterargument though is that role playing doesn't have measurements in terms of success, still, someone who hasn't rolled a d20 for skills in years could still be a great roleplayer, taking into account all character sheet strengths and weaknesses etc. *shrugs*

I might also have been kidding about the flunkies above. Still, "successful" play is not to be equated with shameful behavior, think my tongue-in-cheekness above helped somehow illustrate the point?

Anyhow, probably just yet another recasting of the issue, I guess if someone wants to build two skill-based statics and call it a day... all good. Especially if twenty people do it. Same with DMs considering ahead of time if they want to have a few moderately tough DC challenges as part of an event (diplomatic info gathering, eggheadery in a library researching a problem, whatever), as well as knowing in advance what consequence they'd like to tie to failure (like bringing badly researched Cold Iron weapons to fight what turn out to be Silver-vulnerable critters,), all good as well ("can't believe our sage rolled a 2!"). Especially if a dozen people end up wishing to DM adventures which occasionally involve the dark depths of the skill-sections of the character sheet.

[Brokenbone]

Afterthought on the following: "DM'd play is where the whole character sheet (inclusive of skills, and "dump stats" like 7 CHA) can matter."

- this really only matters when the DM knows who will be playing in his/her session, down to the last details of the character sheet. Glancing at a character sheet or only having vague notions of PC capabilities / limitations, may make a decent game hard to pull together
- this means having a semi-regular patron DM (who knows your PC's strengths and weaknesses!) is very valuable for interesting, tailored play... and if you receive ad-hoc DMing, you might not be getting as rich an experience as could evolve (new kid in the party may have to fight for their share of attention), but give it time, it'll develop

[oldgrayrogue]

To me the issue here has nothing to do with DM'd play and everything to do with game balance in terms of static content. DM'd play on ALFA in my experience (and I play a skill based PC) takes full advantage of the entire character sheet as BB says. It is the static content that is a bit unbalanced and favors warrior/cleric classes and renders skill based PC's like rogues somewhat superflouous. Static content -- like traps, locked chests (*Gasp* With loot in them!) and doors, secret doors, magical puzzles etc -- whether in connection with a dungeon crawl or static quest, makes classes other than those above relevant and useful, and fosters party play even when a DM is not present. It also helps avoid a situation where certain classes are intrinsically more powerful than others in terms of the opportunity for success, survival, and prominence for purely OOC reasons like the style of the static content on the PW, and not the quality of the RP.

In short, when the static content on a PW is geared towards the attributes or certain classes over others there is a potential game balance issue. Adding static content geared toward all classes addresses this imbalance. To be sure TSM has quite a bit of "conversation based" skill static content, but as Mr. D. suggests I to would like to see some of the skill set incorporated into the "adventuring" static content on the server, like traps, locks etc.

[Mulu]

It's funny how the PW environment influences player choice. In my NWC campaign there are no fighters or clerics at all. The closest thing is a bard2/barb1 and a druid. The rest of the party is wizard/rogue, rogue, wiz/monk, wizard, and bard. Well, I did start this campaign in a University....

[kiyoti]

While I love the direction this has gone in and the idea of static content being added for skill based PC’s, I would like to try and return it to its origin, keeping folks from using skills that their PC’s just don’t have. Now im not trying to tell the DM’s how to do their jobs, but when I look at the Standards forum I see a lot of guidelines for DM’s on how to deal with wealth, xp, blackguards, etc. What I don’t see is a standards thread on the guidelines for how to approach skill usage. If asking for such a thing as a standard way to approach a problem is telling a DM what to do then all such standards threads are likewise wrong and the DM should be able to give out as much xp/gold/PrC’s as they see fit without any sort of discussion or standard.

[danielmn]

What exactly do you see that we need Ki?

A resolute definition of how to approach PC's during a dmed event as far as skills are concerned? Should we start punishing players that use skills they don't have? Should a dm include checks for skills in a party where no one has those skills, and no one playing on that server in the timezone of the party has those skills? If so, would you deem those pc's failing at having those skills ultimatly failing at whatever they set out to do everytime acceptable?

Your putting the problem out there. Have you witnessed players rolling checks for skills they don't have often? Are those more rp checks like bluff, or more movement like climb? So what do you think the best solution to the problem is?

[kiyoti]

wow i wish i could have said all that sir!

the answer to those questions is exactly what i was hoping we could discuss here and find an answer to. if i had an answer to all/any of them however, i would not have asked for folks opinions and would have just stated how i felt all this could be handled. I don’t know how. I just feel this is a complicated topic to tackle and that it should be looked into.

[danielmn]

Well, I guess first we have to distinguish if in fact there is a problem, and just how widespread it is. Because we have one persons testimony doesn't make the problem prolific at all, it may have just occured in one session of one event because a player was absent or the class needed was not available. Let me think about what I've seen while playing, and I'll respond a little later I guess with my own thoughts.

[Rotku]

*Takes off his Player Admin Hat and puts on his DM Hat*

What I don’t see is a standards thread on the guidelines for how to approach skill usage.

The moment some silly little committee tells me how to use skill checks as a DM will be the same moment I will stop DMing in ALFA.

Now, before I go on, let me say to those who haven't been DMed by me, or played with me, that I am very non-combat orientated. My PCs very rarely can stand a chance in combat (probably why I go through so many of them) and when DMing I'd take a good political thriller any day over a deungon crawl. That's my style, that's who I am. So my opinion about skill use below isn't because I'm all for combat - it's simply because I prefer to work another way.

I admit that as a DM I don't like skill checks. In fact, I don't like DnD. I think it's a horrible system and there are far more perferable ones to facilitate roleplay. However, it's what we've got, so I work with it.

As a result, I will not be asking for a Diplomacy skill check every time a PC speaks. I will not be asking for a Spot skill check every time a PC walks down the road. I will not be asking for a Lore test on every fact that a PC may or may not know. I feel our players are better than needing some dice to tell them whether or not their PC knows something.

The other day, was in a situation where a PC was trying to convince an NPC of something. Now, in this situation I think deciding the entire thing on a roll is absolutely bizzare. What I would like to see PCs do is roleplay out there skill. And it does happen. We had a couple of PCs who had no diplomacy at all, and they let it show. We had one PC who did, and that came through as well. Likewise, a reverse of the situation - I would not ask a fighter in full plate for a Move Silent check if they were trying to sneak up on a goblin guard. As far as I am concerned, short of divine intervention, there is no way that the fighter would be able to do it - and I expect the player to know this.

In the last three weeks, I have asked for 3 (maybe 4?) skill check rolls, I believe. One was a spot check, to find a small boy who was hiding behind some rocks. They weren't looking for him in that position, so finding him would have just involved looking in the correct place at the correct time. Second, tracking - here I would have let anyone who rolled high enough be able to follow them, as it was in the mud after all, however with the tracking feat I gave further details such as how long ago it was, how many people there were, if they might have stood still for a while, and so forth. Third time I cannot remember, but I swear there was one... maybe a listen check??? So three checks in as many weeks - and this is coming from someone who will take a good skill-based plot any day over a combat based one.

That's what skills are for, as far as I am concerned. They express what our characters can do, and how well they can do it. If characters express their stats correctly, they get more RP XP. If characters clearly play outside of their stats, I let them know and they get less RP XP.

The only times I would be calling for a skill check (or a roll at all, for that matter) is if chance does play a big factor. If a tracker is trying to follow someone through hard-packed ground, I might call for a roll to see if they noticed that snapped twig or bent grass. Likewise, if a rogue is trying to forge some documents based on memory alone or a bard is trying to switch cards during a poker match. The other situation I may think about it, is if the PCs are competing against each other, like in a drinking contest.

So yes, I disagree with what you are saying completely, kiyoti. I think you are looking at this situation way too narrowly. I have told players before, and I will happily tell them again, if they don't like how I DM, go find another DM. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate feed back and will happily alter my DMing style a bit to suit people, but I will not have people telling me what I can and cannot do as a DM.

I can understand that there may be a problem with statics, but when a DM is around there is no reason at all to FORCE them to DM a certain way. Like OGR said "To me the issue here has nothing to do with DM'd play and everything to do with game balance in terms of static content."

[danielmn]

My dwarf tried to track once, just for shits and giggles. The Dm laughed. Thanks Vendrin. The trackless step wasn't necessary though.

Otherwise, I can't think of any point in time where my PC has tracked anything, or a dm has asked me to spot tracks. I guess I already take it for granted that if I am not with a tracker, there isn't going to be a heck of a lot of tracking to be done unless it's in the snow on a good day, or if there is a good blood trail. I guess it all comes down to common sense and what you know your PC can do, like Rotty sez.