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

billd91 · Jul 30, 2012

Imaro said:
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.

This is a good point. I think I might be OK with Schrödinger's Geographical Feature^TM if, as a player, I had been casting about for a short cut or some other place to lose a pursuer while riding. I sure wouldn't expect it as the result of a ride check. That just seems like an answer to the wrong question.

Mallus · Jul 30, 2012

Imaro said:
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?

You've got my thinking... which is good.

Try this on for size.

It's more important to address player agency/PC concept/build when describing their successes rather than their failures.

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?

OK, using the two riders and everyone's favorite gorge, keeping in mind what I wrote above.

Assume two PCs are attempting pursuit on horseback. One is a skilled rider, the other isn't, but is very familiar with local geography.

If the skilled rider makes their check, it makes sense to describe them as succeeding because of their horsemanship, pushing their mount, etc.

If the unskilled rider who knows the lay of the land makes theirs, it likewise makes sense to describe their success as finding a shortcut, avoiding hidden obstacles, etc.

In both cases, this reinforces/supports the character concepts and chosen method of shaping the fiction. Obvious, right?

Now consider failure.

To me, it makes perfect sense for the skilled Rider to get stuck at the gorge -- precisely because they doesn't know the local geography. This makes (more) sense in the fiction. The rider rode as hard as they could, because that's what they do best, but, unfortunately, they didn't know the land.

Likewise the unskilled rider -- it makes less sense for them to get lost/forget an important terrain feature. It makes more sense for them to fall off their horse (or overtax it, whatever).

Reifying character concept and acknowledging player agency are important. But the place to do (most of) it is when a player makes their roll, not when they blow it.

To do otherwise would produce an... oddly un-simulative game where skilled people only fail because of their expertise (and not extraneous circumstances and/or the things they actually suck at).

To my mind, this approach does a better job at supporting player agency. You succeed because of your chosen shtick. You fail for a larger pool of reasons (which can include screwing up your shtick).

Mallus · Jul 30, 2012

billd91 said:
That just seems like an answer to the wrong question.

Remember the important question is "do I catch the person I'm chasing?".

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

LostSoul said:
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.

Ok, first this wasn't the situation as presented. Second, doesn't the amount of resources spent determine just how good of a rider the character is (at least as far as mechanics go)? Second, when did excellent rider = infallible rider? Third, why does the DM have the right to determine whether it was the characters skill or outside forces that caused him to fail, why doesn't the character decide that... or the dice?

Edit: Doesn't this philosophy also lead to spamming of a skill over and over again? If he failed a ride check a second time would you again attribute it to outside forces and let him make another ride check? What about a 3rd time?

Nagol · Jul 30, 2012

Mallus said:
You've got my thinking... which is good. Try this on for size.

It's more important to address player agency/PC concept/build when describing their successes rather than their failures.

OK, using the two riders and everyone's favorite gorge, keeping in mind what I wrote above.

Assume two PCs are attempting pursuit on horseback. One is a skilled rider, the other isn't, but is very familiar with local geography.

If the skilled rider makes their check, it makes sense to describe them as succeeding because of their horsemanship, pushing their mount, etc.

If the unskilled rider who knows the lay of the land makes theirs, it likewise makes sense to describe their success as finding a shortcut, avoiding hidden obstacles, etc.

In both cases, this reinforces/supports the character concepts and chosen method of shaping the fiction. Obvious, right?

Now consider failure.

To me, it makes perfect sense for the skilled Rider to get stuck at the gorge -- precisely because they doesn't know the local geography. This makes (more) sense in the fiction. The rider rode as hard as they could, because that's what they do best, but, unfortunately, they didn't know the land.

Likewise the unskilled rider -- it makes less sense for them to get lost/forget an important terrain feature. It makes more sense for them to fall off their horse (or overtax it, whatever).

Reifying character concept and acknowledging player agency are important. But the place to do (most of) it is when a player makes their roll, not when they blow it.

To do otherwise would produce an... oddly un-simulative game where skilled people only fail because of their expertise (and not extraneous circumstances and/or the things they actually suck at).

To my mind, this approach does a better job at supporting player agency. You succeed because of your chosen shtick. You fail for a larger pool of reasons (which can include screwing up your shtick).

In your example, why is the unskilled rider depending on the Riding skill to begin with? Would it not make even more sense for that PC to say "Hmm, I'm not too hot in the saddle. Can I find a little-known shortcut to cut him off at the pass?" That way, the success or failure is actually tied to his schtick as opposed to the remote chance of success being tied to something with relatively less chance of success?

As for PCs only failing at something they're good at, that represents (to my mind) a failure of the mechanic. There should be cases where the skills being tested are quite constrained within the challenge. The other thing to remember is the dafault is failure. The PC only has a chance of succeeding because he's good at his schtick.

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

Mallus said:
You've got my thinking... which is good. Try this on for size.

It's more important to address player agency/PC concept/build when describing their successes rather than their failures.

Why? This sounds like a Mallus preference thing as opposed to anything concrete. I think it's just as important to define one's characters through their successes as it is through their failures... both enlighten others at the table about said character... why should the DM define one but not the other?

Mallus said:
OK, using the two riders and everyone's favorite gorge, keeping in mind what I wrote above.

Assume two PCs are attempting pursuit on horseback. One is a skilled rider, the other isn't, but is very familiar with local geography.

If the skilled rider makes their check, it makes sense to describe them as succeeding because of their horsemanship, pushing their mount, etc.

If the unskilled rider who knows the lay of the land makes theirs, it likewise makes sense to describe their success as finding a shortcut, avoiding hidden obstacles, etc.

In both cases, this reinforces/supports the character concepts and chosen method of shaping the fiction. Obvious, right?

Now consider failure.

To me, it makes perfect sense for the skilled Rider to get stuck at the gorge -- precisely because they doesn't know the local geography. This makes (more) sense in the fiction. The rider rode as hard as they could, because that's what they do best, but, unfortunately, they didn't know the land.

Likewise the unskilled rider -- it makes less sense for them to get lost/forget an important terrain feature. It makes more sense for them to fall off their horse (or overtax it, whatever).

Reifying character concept and acknowledging player agency are important. But the place to do (most of) it is when a player makes their roll, not when they blow it.

To do otherwise would produce an... oddly un-simulative game where skilled people only fail because of their expertise (and not extraneous circumstances and/or the things they actually suck at).

To my mind, this approach does a better job at supporting player agency. You succeed because of your chosen shtick. You fail for a larger pool of reasons (which can include screwing up your shtick).

But why do you decide that for the player? As I said above, how a character fails can be just as, or more important than how he succeeds. I am making the conscious choice to frame the scene in terms of my riding skill... I am an excelllent rider, however that does not mean that my riding skill is infallible.

By letting me shape the fiction of my ride skill failure I show you what my limits are, what I may not have learned about the skill yet (which ties into increasing the rank in it unless I'm 30th level already), and how I cope with the things I have not yet learned in my time as a rider. It also opens up roleplaying possibilities, since I now have the opportunity to react to my failure or success as a rider due to my own knowledge and skill... as opposed to it allways being somebody or something else's fault.

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

Mallus said:
Remember the important question is "do I catch the person I'm chasing?".

Why are you assuming this? If this is the "important" question why do we even need fiction framing in order to show how you caught him.

I honestly think this is one of those playstyle things. For some people this is the most important question... for others, an interesting story will arise whether they catch him or not... the question for them is what fun can be had to reach the end point... that fun, for some people, can very much encompass both success and failure... especially since 4e gives the advice that the adventure shouldn't fizzle out from failure on SC's and skill rolls... there should just be consequences.

chaochou · Jul 30, 2012

These are interesting and multi-faceted questions. So these answers are for discussion, with no pretense at being 'correct' or definitive in any way.

Imaro said:
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?

I think what's slowly been driven at is the difference which is usually highlighted between 'task' and 'conflict' resolution.

I'm on a horse being pursued by some people who mean me harm and I want to escape...

If I use task resolution to ride away the roll answers the question 'How well do I ride my horse?'

Great. The problem (for some) here is that is does not answer the question 'Do I escape?' and if you iterate further through the process - okay I failed ride and fell off my horse, now what? Okay I hide. I failed that, okay, I climb a tree... etc none of these rolls are answering the question 'Do I escape?'. Even if I make my ride check it still doesn't tell me if I escaped.

In the absence of a structure - like 3 successes before 3 failures - there has to be some other process if you are to ever arrive at an answer. GM fiat? Group concensus? Player fails 10 rolls and still narrates an escape? There's nothing objectively 'wrong' with any of these - they just don't suit everyone's taste.

OTOH, you have 'conflict resolution' which answers the question 'Do I escape?' but leaves the process of escape open to interpretation (how open is up to the group). You failed ride, you're at a gorge...

So my failed 'ride' roll tells me is that I haven't escaped, but leaves the how and why to the group to fill in the fiction. Personally, I think it's important in this situation that the horse still matters in the fiction. Okay I'm backed into a gorge, but I have my horse so I still have all my possessions. I've ridden a while, so I've possibly put some distance between me and the pursuers. These things would not be the case had I used Athletics instead.

In other words, the difference between using 'Ride' to ride away and using 'Athletics' to run away is still used as the basis for determining 'what happens next', but in a broad rather than specific way.

Imaro said:
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?

Firstly I don't think the gorge example shows a disregard for causal connection. I think it's a matter of degree. The gorge was explained as 'I was concentrating so hard on riding I wasn't paying attention to where I was going.' That's still a cause and effect, just a much looser interpretation of what it means to make a ride check based on intent rather than process (as I tried to discuss in task vs conflict).

But more generally - I think you're getting into questions of authority and credibility. That is 'Who can say what and have it accepted into the game as having happened?'

So if I'm running Burning Wheel and a player says - "Ahh, how about if I make this stealth roll I find an old secret tunnel going under the castle?" I'd be like "Hell, yeah!" Same with Apocalpyse World or HeroWars or Diaspora. Because I run very collobaratively in those games - my job is to take players' ideas and then add my twist in a way that gives the players new ideas and ways to riff off them to develop the situation.

But I'm playing in an L5R game right now (same group as BW, HeroWars and Diaspora) where I couldn't do that. It's not how we're playing this particular game.

Mallus · Jul 30, 2012

Nagol said:
In your example, why is the unskilled rider depending on the Riding skill to begin with?

The unskilled rider is using Knowledge: Local Geography or something equivalent. I should have been clearer.

So the situation in my example is:

Skilled rider fails Ride check during a pursuit --> is described as running into gorge.

Skilled Local Geographer fails Local Geography check during a pursuit --> is described as a falling off horse/otherwise failing to spur on horse.

Would it not make even more sense for that PC to say "Hmm, I'm not too hot in the saddle. Can I find a little-known shortcut to cut him off at the pass?

Yes. That's what I meant. But I'm also suggesting that failing your "cutting them off at the pass" check could be described, on occasion, as poor horsemanship.

Imaro · Jul 30, 2012

chaochou said:
OTOH, you have 'conflict resolution' which answers the question 'Do I escape?' but leaves the process of escape open to interpretation (how open is up to the group). You failed ride, you're at a gorge...

I'm with you up until here... Why does using the ride skill in a SC now encompass something totally different than it did in a single skill check... one's ability to ride? Isn't the process of escape exactly what is ebing defined by the use of skills, actions, powers, etc. by the players?

chaochou said:
So my failed 'ride' roll tells me is that I haven't escaped, but leaves the how and why to the group to fill in the fiction. Personally, I think it's important in this situation that the horse still matters in the fiction. Okay I'm backed into a gorge, but I have my horse so I still have all my possessions. I've ridden a while, so I've possibly put some distance between me and the pursuers. These things would not be the case had I used Athletics instead.

Your failed ride roll only answers that question if it is the third failure of the SC... otherwise it doesn't answer the question of whether you have escaped or not. Thus what exactly is that roll telling you? IMO, nothing more that that particular task or action was successful or failed. It is a specific task that has been resolved within the SC...unless it is the final failure or final success... so why would you treat this roll, barring it satisfying one of those two conditions as anything other than task completion or failure?

chaochou said:
In other words, the difference between using 'Ride' to ride away and using 'Athletics' to run away is still used as the basis for determining 'what happens next', but in a broad rather than specific way.

The horse being there is not a property of having used the ride skill... If I had ran with Athletics and led the horse alongside me... I would still have a horse. Again, I feel like the reason I as a player choose ride vs. athletics is because I want to answer the question of how and link that to the result. It's not just about having the horse at the end, it's about the fiction of me riding away vs. the fiction of me running away.

chaochou said:
But I'm playing in an L5R game right now (same group as BW, HeroWars and Diaspora) where I couldn't do that. It's not how we're playing this particular game.

Yeah I can get down with this, another question just for my own curiosity... do you feel 4e is more similar to BW/HW or L5R??