D&D 5E With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base

chaochou · Jul 30, 2012

Imaro said:
I feel like this goes back to player agency, by choosing riding I am letting the DM know that I want this part of the narrative, concerning my character, to be about using my riding abilities to try and overcome this particular challenge. However by creating a gorge that suddenly appears before me, aren't you basically taking away my power to steer and shape the narrative through my characters riding ability and instead made it about something else (the geography of the imaginary world perhaps)?

In the situation described the player failed a ride check, so I'm confused.

Could you provide some examples of failed ride checks which don't take away your power to steer and shape the narrative through riding?

Mallus · Jul 30, 2012

chaochou said:
Could you provide some examples of failed ride checks which don't take away your power to steer and shape the narrative through riding?

I guess the DM could keep saying, "Umm, you failed to make your horse go fast" each time the player fails a Ride check...

Which points out my problem with tying a failed roll --any roll-- too tightly to the single given skill/ability -- it makes describing the results a bit dull. Not to mention repetitive.

Using broader, more abstract interpretations of missed rolls leads to more interesting fiction -- particularly if the DM uses said liberal interpretations as a springboard for new situations/interesting fictions, ie, what's in that gorge?

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

Mallus said:
Let me take a crack at this.

Like other posters have said, D&D has never traditionally been a process simulation. It's task resolution systems have been geared toward results. "Does X happen?" As to why X happened, that's left to the DM (and/or player) to fit the result into the current fiction.

This said, there is a point where the why is defined since mechanics must be accounted for. Why can I kill with an attack... because I am using a weapon that deals lethal damage. If I do not have a weapon I don't do lethal damage (well barring special circumstances, which in turn change the why, in every edition prior to 4e I believe)

Mallus said:
Take combat. A missed attack roll could be described as a clean miss, an opponent dodging out of the way, the PC slipping on a banana peel, or any one of a number of possible fictive dressings applied to the result of the die roll.

Yes but would you as DM describe my hit with a club as cutting into an opponent? Or a power I use with the fire keyword as having frozen something? You see by choosing a particular weapon, or power I as a player am exerting agency over the fiction, doesn't this same thing apply to skills?

Mallus said:
For the most part, the rules simply don't care which one is "true". Or, rather, the "true" one is whichever the DM chooses.

I disagree as shown by my previous examples. There is leeway, but the question is at what point is your leeway intruding or even neutralizing my agency to shape the fiction as a player through the choices I have made in the game and with my character?

Mallus said:
A trained combatant will hit more often then their less trained pal. Ditto the skilled rider, who'll avoid the hypothetical gorge more frequently than someone who doesn't know their way around a horse. It is through this increased chance of success player/character agency is reflected/addresses/preserved.

Why would a skilled rider, who knows nothing of the geography of a particular place, run into gorges less often than someone not as skilled on horseback but who has grown up in the area and knows it like the back of his hand?

I disagree with your assertion. I believe it is through the skill(s) one chooses as his method of interactiing with the skill challenge at a particular point and time... as well as his success (just like picking a particular weapon, or power and hitting or missing with it) that reflects/addresses/(and if respected by the DM) perserves a player's agency. Why shouldn't the fact that a character chooses to use his horsemanship vs. his knowledge of the area to flee from pursuers be reflected in the fiction?

Mallus said:
Deliberately problematizing a system which doesn't care concern itself with process, and which operated on a highly abstract, and in the case of older editions speed-oriented, level, is... well, problematic (or at least uncharitable).

Because the system, to a limited point, is very much concerned with the how and the effect.

Mallus said:
Roll the dice. Listen to the DM describe the results. Respond.

Yeah, I don't get this... this is saying only the DM gets to frame and shape the fiction... and as a player I just get to roll some dice... that's not agency.

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

chaochou said:
In the situation described the player failed a ride check, so I'm confused.

Could you provide some examples of failed ride checks which don't take away your power to steer and shape the narrative through riding?

Wait, so you don't allow players to narrate the fiction of their failure? Because if so this kinda makes my point to manbearcat... If you read his post he lets his players narrate their failures... and I was explaining to him that I didn't believe all tables were run like his.

Now to address your question...nothing inherent in the rules of a failed skill check states the DM must narrate the fiction at that point.

EDIT: As to a few examples...

Player: Sudenly the reigns are ripped from my grasp, as in that moment I realize I hadn't taken the time to secure them properly and the horse gallops in a random direction at full speed... byt he time I regain control of the steed I'm not sure exactly where I am.

Player: Usually I am as one with my mounts, but I can't seem to master this stallion and he fights against my control with every step...I think to myself, "It will take a better rider than I to break him" as I hear the shouts of the riders pursuing me growing closer.

Player: I push the horse forward faster and faster whipping the reigns back and forth. Suddenly I realize that I do not have the skill to stay atop the beast at such a high speed and as I try to pull him to a stop I am thrown to the ground. The horse rears up above me and then galllops off. As I climb to my feet I sense the presence of other riders circling me with weapons drawn... it seems my pursuers were better riders than I.

chaochou · Jul 30, 2012

Imaro said:
Wait, so you don't allow players to narrate the fiction of their failure? Because if so this kinda makes my point to manbearcat... unless they choose to give up agency. If you read his post he lets his players narrate their failures... and I was explaining to him that I didn't believe all tables were run like his.

Now to address your question...nothing inherent in the rules of a failed skill check states the DM must narrate the fiction at that point.

Nice try. But you'll note I didn't say who was doing the narrating.

I asked you how to narrate a failed ride check in a way which doesn't take away your ability to shape the narrative through riding.

Nagol · Jul 30, 2012

chaochou said:
Nice try. But you'll note I didn't say who was doing the narrating.

I asked you how to narrate a failed ride check in a way which doesn't take away your ability to shape the narrative through riding.

The horse pulled lame; the horse and rider are slowed by brush as you try to force through it; the horse leaves the path at a switchback; the horse fails a jump.

The player shapes the narrative by choosing a Ride gambit. The gambit defines the expected possibilities. The success/failure of the attempt ties back into what was being attempted and provides feedback congruent to both PC and player.

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

Nagol said:
The horse pulled lame; the horse and rider are slowed by brush as you try to force through it; the horse leaves the path at a switchback; the horse fails a jump.

The player shapes the narrative by choosing a Ride gambit. The gambit defines the expected possibilities. The success/failure of the attempt ties back into what was being attempted and provides feedback congruent to both PC and player.

[MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION]: This. I added some of my own to the original response but Nagol has answered thew question pretty well.

chaochou · Jul 30, 2012

[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION]: Thanks for the examples.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point again, but it seems that you'd be fine for the player to arrive at a player-created gorge as a result of failing a ride check - and perhaps at a group-concensus created gorge ("Woudn't it be cool if you came to a deep gorge like the chase in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?" "Yeah!") but not a GM-created one?

So like this...

Imaro said:
Player: Sudenly the reigns are ripped from my grasp, as in that moment I realize I hadn't taken the time to secure them properly and the horse gallops in a random direction at full speed... by he time I regain control of the steed I'm peering over the edge of a precipitous gorge with turquoise and white flecked rapids foaming in deep pools at the bottom.

(My edit in bold italics).

Is this the player agency you're referring to?

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

chaochou said:
@Imaro : Thanks for the examples.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point again, but it seems that you'd be fine for the player to arrive at a player-created gorge as a result of failing a ride check - and perhaps at a group-concensus created gorge ("Woudn't it be cool if you came to a deep gorge like the chase in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid?" "Yeah!") but not a GM-created one?

So like this...

(My edit in bold italics).

Is this the player agency you're referring to?

Sort of. Using 4e as an example, there are two ways I could go about choosing the skill I use as a player in a SC. The first is to go for the most mechanically sound skill (the one I have the highest bonus in that will apply) and then frame the fiction as a secondary concern. The other is to choose a skill I think fits the fiction framing or setup that I wish to invoke through player agency.

Now I won't say no player in the world would use ride and then narrate the appearance of a gorge, but for me if I choose to approach the SC through the lens of of using my "ride" ability (as opposed to nature) I am more interested in the fiction being framed and shaped around my riding abilities, if I wanted it shaped or framed around the landscape or geography then I would probably use nature.

I guess my confusion is... if the actual skill used by a player has no bearing on how the fiction is shaped during the why or the how... then why do we need differetly named skills?

Another thing I find myself curious about is whether this disregard for causal connections between the skill or ability used and the effect extends to players as well. Can a player use his stealth skill to evade some guards but narrate it as a cavern suddenly opening up in the ground and swallowing them? Would DM's be okay with that?

LostSoul · Jul 30, 2012

Imaro said:
I'm curious how the posters who don't believe there needs to be causality connections between skill use and results view the issue of player empowerment outside of simulation concerns.

If I as a player have chosen, in a skill challenge, to use my riding skill vs. my local knowledge/nature/history skill then am I not saying I want the story of how my character tries to escape to be framed around the use of that particular set (or subset) of my characters abilities?

I feel like this goes back to player agency, by choosing riding I am letting the DM know that I want this part of the narrative, concerning my character, to be about using my riding abilities to try and overcome this particular challenge. However by creating a gorge that suddenly appears before me, aren't you basically taking away my power to steer and shape the narrative through my characters riding ability and instead made it about something else (the geography of the imaginary world perhaps)?

I think the situation is like this:

Player: My guy is from a horse-riding culture, like the Mongols or Huns, born in the saddle and that sort of thing. He's an awesome rider.

DM: Cool. I guess you will spend resources to get there.

Player: Yeah.

Later on in the game, the PC fails a check to ride his horse.

The player has a vision of his character. The DM doesn't want to compromise that vision in any way. He wants the PC to remain true to the player's vision, which requires that he's an excellent rider.

But the dice show that his action requires a failure.

In order to maintain the... status? (there's a word I want here but I can't think of it edit: integrity, that's it) of the PC as an awesome rider, the DM decides that he didn't fail because his excellent riding skills let him down; he failed because of factors outside of his control. The failure is some other complication - a gorge that was out of sight - that wasn't related to riding, and thus the ability of the PC to ride is maintained.

Now because the PC's riding ability isn't in question, the player can choose to go back to the well - to use his riding ability to get out of this new situation.