Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[pemerton]

According to Rodney Thompson, D&Dnext will use the following basic approach to action resolution:

As an example, let's say that the heroes are in a tavern trying to get information out of a member of the Thieves' Guild. The smooth-talking rogue says that he wants to deceive the thief into thinking that she is a member of the same guild to earn his confidence. Alternatively, the brawny fighter wants to crush a pewter mug in his hand to intimidate the thief into talking. If we have done a good job of educating the DM, then the DM simply sets an appropriate DC for success and calls for a Charisma check (from the rogue) or a Strength check (from the fighter). Rather than call on some kind of subsystem, we simply educate the DM on the best way to set a DC, and the best way to choose which ability to use for an ability check. That also has the advantage of allowing the player to simply say what his or her character does, then having the DM respond with the kind of check to be made, meaning that players are always talking about their actions in terms of what their characters do.​

Now maybe I'm missing something, but I don't entirely see how this is going to produce results radically different from 4e. To be more precise: I can see how reducing the skill list to a stat list simplifies things. But I don't see how it is meant to work wonders for fictional positioning.

In this system, a player cannot have his PC make an action resolution role without explaining what it is that s/he is doing: crushing the mug, lying about guild membership, etc. The same thing is true in 4e - a player must explain what his/her PC is doing, and a skill check or (less often) an ability check is then made.

In 4e, players typically attempt to have their PCs engage the situation in ways which maximise their chances of success (eg by looking for ways to use their best skill bonuses). In the D&Dnext system, presumably the same will be true - the player of the high CHA, low STR rogue, for example, is going to avoid describing his/her PC trying to crush too many mugs, for fear of looking like an idiot.

What am I missing?

 

[Lanefan]

In this system, a player cannot have his PC make an action resolution role without explaining what it is that s/he is doing: crushing the mug, lying about guild membership, etc. The same thing is true in 4e - a player must explain what his/her PC is doing, and a skill check or (less often) an ability check is then made.

Must they, in 4e; or can they just say "I'm using Intimidate" or "I'm using Diplomacy" (or nearest 4e equivalent)? Ditto for 3e, I saw this there often enough.

In 4e, players typically attempt to have their PCs engage the situation in ways which maximise their chances of success (eg by looking for ways to use their best skill bonuses). In the D&Dnext system, presumably the same will be true - the player of the high CHA, low STR rogue, for example, is going to avoid describing his/her PC trying to crush too many mugs, for fear of looking like an idiot.

What am I missing?

A guess: that the specifics are left entirely with the DM, including the call on what skill/ability gets tied to what action in any given situation. The player specifically cannot say only "I'm using Intimidate"; and if he does the DM must come back with "no, tell me what you are actually doing and I'll decide what check you're making". In other words, they're forcing players back into first-person description of actions rather than third-person description of game-mechanical skill use. And if my guess here is in fact right, I'm cool with it.

As for the high CHA, low STR Thief crushing a mug, perhaps a glance at the WIS stat should come into play as well?

Lan-"high INT, low WIS characters are always the most fun to play"-efan

 

[GX.Sigma]

It's mainly about how the player interacts with the character sheet.

The thing is, when you have a list of things you can do, you tend to just look through them and pick one. If you don't have a list, you can do whatever you want.

If you have a high charisma, you think "I should try to use my charisma somehow to solve this problem." But if you have a high Bluff, you think "I should bluff this guy, because I am good at bluffing people."

 

[Dice4Hire]

I agree with [MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION] I think trying to get away from a list of skills is a very good thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I guess the real test will be the 'educating the DM' bit. That's really where the whole thing hangs. Because, aside from that, it's just the DM arbitrarily deciding success or failure based on how much he likes what you're doing.

I'm not in any way deriding this as the 'mother may I' system (though we're bound to hear it again). This is the 'system' that any good DM falls back on when a player pushes the envelope or finds a hole in the rules somewhere. "Can I do 'Q?'" asks the player, when the rules only model A-L. "Sure" DM reaches into his *ahem* back pocket "make a roll." :rattle: "13" Then you reply with "No problem, you made it" or "Ooh, just missed it," depending on where you want to go with the scene. Well, or pulled a number out of your "back pocket" and stick with it.

As a basis for a core resolution system, though, it seems a little weak.

Again, unless that "educating the DM" bit really comes through with flying colors.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The thing is, when you have a list of things you can do, you tend to just look through them and pick one. If you don't have a list, you can do whatever you want.

Sounds a little "bad rules make good games" to me. Well, "no rules," really. If you have mechanics that define what your character can do, you know what he can do and can make decisions accordingly. If it all rides on your DM's whim - or "training" - you don't know what you can do (for sure) and you have no way of assuring that you can do something your character concept calls for.

:shrug:

 

[pemerton]

Must they, in 4e; or can they just say "I'm using Intimidate" or "I'm using Diplomacy" (or nearest 4e equivalent)? Ditto for 3e, I saw this there often enough.

Here is the relevant rules text from the 4e PHB:

p 178
The DM tells you if a skill check is appropriate in a given situation or directs you to make a check if circumstances call for one.

p 179
Whatever the details of a skill challenge, the basic structure of a skill challenge is straightforward. . . It’s up to you to think of ways you can use your skills to meet the challenges you face.

p 259
A skill challenge occurs when exploration or social interaction becomes an encounter . . . Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks . . .

Chapter 5 describes the sorts of things you can attempt with your skills in a skill challenge.​

I think this is pretty clear: the GM describes the situation, the player describes his/her PC's action in response to that situation, the GM calls for a check, the check is made and its consequences adjudicated.

The corresponding text from the DMG says much the same thing.

Of course, those 4e rules take for granted that players will be looking for ways to bring their strong skills to bear; but the same thing, presumably, will be true in D&Dnext. If anything of importance turns on it, no one whose PC has STR 8 or 10 is going to call the mug-crushing action, especially if s/he has CHA 16 or 18 instead.

(The mug-crushing example is interesting mostly for suggesting, once again, that in some contexts STR rather than CHA is the Intimidate stat. In 4e the canonical way to resolve this would be via a STR check to cruch the mug to grant a +2 to Intimidate.)

A guess: that the specifics are left entirely with the DM, including the call on what skill/ability gets tied to what action in any given situation.

But presumably the stats will still have descriptions, much like skills do in 4e, indicating what sorts of endeavours would fall under which stats.

The player specifically cannot say only "I'm using Intimidate"; and if he does the DM must come back with "no, tell me what you are actually doing and I'll decide what check you're making". In other words, they're forcing players back into first-person description of actions rather than third-person description of game-mechanical skill use.

But this will only change play, won't it, if the GM is not obliged to call the relevant stat until after the player is committed to the action. If takebacks are allowed once the stat to be checked is declared, then players will presumably look for options that trade on their best stats. (And even if takebacks aren't allowed, clever players will quickly learn their GM's predilictions for making calls on stats.)

It's mainly about how the player interacts with the character sheet.

The thing is, when you have a list of things you can do, you tend to just look through them and pick one. If you don't have a list, you can do whatever you want.

If you have a high charisma, you think "I should try to use my charisma somehow to solve this problem." But if you have a high Bluff, you think "I should bluff this guy, because I am good at bluffing people."

I don't see the big difference between checking my sheet to confirm that my CHA is higher than my STR, and checking my sheet to confirm that my Bluff is higher than my Diplomacy.

You still can't do whatever you want - if your STR is low, you won't crush many mugs! And there are still going to be skill notations next to your stats, that will make some uses of a stat more advantageous than others.

The character sheet may be easier to read under this approach, but I still don't see a fundamental change in gameplay.

 

[Connorsrpg]

[MENTION=6690511]GX.Sigma[/MENTION]

Exactly. (seems I cannot Xp you yet).

Our games over the years have gone from 'I do this'...and then you look at sheet or ways to do that, to players searching through the many things on their sheet to see what is best first.

With skill lists, MIs, Power Lists, feats, etc this DID eat up game time and players were often actively discouraged from doing what they felt was right in favour of what their skills/powers/role suggested they should do. This was especially frustrating to new and young players, when XPed ones suggested the 'better' things to do.

Yes, players will often still go for the most advantageous, but at least it should be quicker, and hopefully the modifiers are much lower so that trying something else isn't so out of whack.

 

[Dausuul]

I think this is pretty clear: the GM describes the situation, the player describes his/her PC's action in response to that situation, the GM calls for a check, the check is made and its consequences adjudicated.

You know, we have the abbreviation RAW for "rules as written," and RAI for "rules as intended." I think we need a third: RAP, for "rules as played." Very few players read and internalize every line of the rulebook. They pick things up in play, or extrapolate based on the bits they remember.

Yes, you are absolutely right that this is how it's supposed to work. And when you're running 4E, or I am, this is how it does work. But I have seen a lot of people do it the other way, and I have had quite a few players try to do it in my games--they see the skill on their character sheet and figure it works like any other power, spell, feat, or what have you. The following exchange is one I know pretty well:

Player: "I roll Diplomacy to get him to help us."
Me: "So... what are you saying?"

If D&DN can put the player's focus back on the fiction rather than numbers on the character sheet, I will be a happy camper. I just hope it doesn't end up like this:

Player: "I roll Charisma to get him to help us."
Me: *beats player over the head with a copy of the Mentzer red box*

 

[KidSnide]

You know, we have the abbreviation RAW for "rules as written," and RAI for "rules as intended." I think we need a third: RAP, for "rules as played." Very few players read and internalize every line of the rulebook. They pick things up in play, or extrapolate based on the bits they remember.

If you look at the complaints about prior editions, many of them spring from the difference between rules as played and rules as intended. For example in 4e the rules contemplate that players would frequently improvise actions. Page 42 in the DMG was all about that. But in actual practice, many players found that they felt themselves limited based on the powers available on their character sheets. Similarly 3e contemplated a four encounter per day structure to balance the classes, but the practical use of one big encounter (by DM design or by scary-buff-teleport) generates a very different dynamic.

Frankly, one of the major potential benefits of extensive playtesting is learning about this earlier. The challenge is figuring out whether players "doing it wrong" is a design flaw or just a difference in play style preference.

-KS