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

Imaro said:

This sounds like a Mallus preference thing as opposed to anything concrete.

Click to expand...

You mean 'concrete' like your opinions on the subject?

I think it's just as important to define one's characters through their successes as it is through their failures...

Click to expand...

Of course. But that has little-to-nothing to do with the issue of a DM being able to use a variety of descriptions re: failure states.

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...

Click to expand...

If the player makes the check, then their riding skill wins the day, they succeed, and they get (limited) attendant narration rights.

If they fail the check, the narrative ball is back in the DMs court.

It sounds like you're suggesting players get to proscribe (all? most of?) the possible failure states of an attempted action. If you're not, why are you objecting to the occasional gorge cropping on a failed Ride check?

By letting me shape the fiction of my ride skill failure I show you what my limits are...

Click to expand...

Now it really sounds like you're saying the player gets narration rights on both successes and failures. That's interesting, and I'm definitely be open to suggestions on the kind at the table --my group often narrates by committee-- but ultimately the DM is responsible for the environment's reactions. And sometimes those reactions are going to come in a form *not* of the player's choosing.

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.

Click to expand...

Note I'm not suggesting every failed Ride check be due to a pesky gorge. Only some. I wouldn't want to deprive a player of their chance to ruminate on their own imaginary failings...

Imaro said:

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?

Click to expand...

1. Close enough?

2. (the first) Not really. Resources - such as feats, skill ranks, or skill training - are a meta-game resource, an abstraction of the game world (at best). They require the players and the DM to translate those resources into fiction, usually through application of action resolution mechanics - but not always.

2. (the second) I didn't describe said character as infallible. You just did; nowhere did I say he was infallible.

I said: "In order to maintain the integrity 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."

I'm saying that the DM thinks a) that having the PC's ride fail him at this moment would be harmful to the character's integrity within the fiction and b) that the DM thinks, in this situation, the best way to maintain the PC's integrity while still using the result of the failed check is to introduce a gorge.

Other situations may be different.

3. I assume because it's the DM's job to determine the result of failure in these specific action resolution mechanics. I think this is the case for skill challenges in 4E.

4. (the edit) Yes, this could lead to spamming skills. That is fine. Would the DM let him make another ride check? It's not really up to the DM - it depends on what the PC does.

*

You can see how this technique is going to work well for certain play styles and poorly for others. I don't use this technique in my own 4E hack, for instance, because the DM in that system isn't supposed to care about the integrity of the PCs.

Mallus said:

You mean 'concrete' like your opinions on the subject?

Click to expand...

Nope I readily admit their oppinions and I try to stay away from definitive language...

Mallus said:

Of course. But that has little-to-nothing to do with the issue of a DM being able to use a variety of descriptions re: failure states.

Click to expand...

Sure it does... you've defined why my character failed and how he failed... I didn't.

Mallus said:

If the player makes the check, then their riding skill wins the day, they succeed, and they (limited) attendant narration rights.

Click to expand...

I agree...

Mallus said:

If they fail the check, the narrative ball is back in the DMs court.

Click to expand...

I disagre...

Do you think you have a better grasp on a players character then they do? As a comic book example... the way Gambit fails and responds to said failure is different from the way Wolverine fails and responds to his failures. This is a part of their characterization... why do you as DM get to define that for the players characters?

Mallus said:

It sounds like you're suggesting players get to proscribe (all? most of?) the possible failure states of an attempted action. If you're not, why are you objecting to the occasional gorge cropping on a failed Ride check?

Click to expand...

For a couple of reasons... but mainly because it either pre-supposes you as DM know more about the character than the player does... or it takes away player agency. I mean I've given reasons I think players should get to narrate their failures (though I'll admit we have agreed that on a roll of a natural 1 the DM gets to dictate what happens in the event of a failure) but you haven't give a single reason why they shouldn't... how about we start there?

Mallus said:

You don't, as the player, get to shape the outcome of failing a check. You can make a suggestion, but that's it. The DM is responsible with the environment's reactions.

Click to expand...

Who said my failure was caused by the environment? You're forcing that fiction/narrative/whatever on my character when he or she fails... but just as easily as it could have been the environment... it could have been my characters lack of faith, skill, confidence, attention, overconfidence, arrogance, rage, etc. that caused his failure. Why do you get to decide that it was the environment?

Mallus said:

.

Note I'm not suggesting every failed Ride check be due to a pesky gorge. Only some. I wouldn't want to deprive a player of their chance to ruminate on their own imaginary failings...

Click to expand...

No you're just stating the DM gets narrative control over when and where a player gets the chance to express that aspect of their character... I'm sorry I must have missed it... why don't you allow players to narrate the result of their own failures?? Manbearcat allows it, I allow it in my games as well... so I'm just wondering why is it you don't allow characters to do that? You keep stating you don't but I've given reasons why I do... so I'd be interested in hearing yours



EDIT: I'm curious... who narrates when your NPC's or monsters fail, do the players?

LostSoul said:

1. Close enough?

2. (the first) Not really. Resources - such as feats, skill ranks, or skill training - are a meta-game resource, an abstraction of the game world (at best). They require the players and the DM to translate those resources into fiction, usually through application of action resolution mechanics - but not always.

2. (the second) I didn't describe said character as infallible. You just did; nowhere did I say he was infallible.

I said: "In order to maintain the integrity 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."

I'm saying that the DM thinks a) that having the PC's ride fail him at this moment would be harmful to the character's integrity within the fiction and b) that the DM thinks, in this situation, the best way to maintain the PC's integrity while still using the result of the failed check is to introduce a gorge.

Other situations may be different.

3. I assume because it's the DM's job to determine the result of failure in these specific action resolution mechanics. I think this is the case for skill challenges in 4E.

4. (the edit) Yes, this could lead to spamming skills. That is fine. Would the DM let him make another ride check? It's not really up to the DM - it depends on what the PC does.

*

You can see how this technique is going to work well for certain play styles and poorly for others. I don't use this technique in my own 4E hack, for instance, because the DM in that system isn't supposed to care about the integrity of the PCs.

Click to expand...

You've set up so many assumptions (from playstyle to what the DM thinks) that all I can say is... within the specific example you've created... you are correct... of course if I constructed an example to perfectly fit my argument... I would probably be as well.

Imaro said:

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...

Click to expand...

My personal view? Because D&D designers (both 4e and now) have to try and marry new ideas and mechanics with a sense of tradition - and it's not always a clean or easy fit.

Imaro said:

Your failed ride roll only answers that question if it is the third failure of the SC...

Click to expand...

Apologies - I realise a SC has multiple rolls but I shortened it to one for simplicity and brevity. However, I think the point still stands - a success or failure in your SC ride roll is both a) creating a new situation and b) telling you whether or not you are closer to escape.

Using task resolution you can just as adequately create a new situation - but the question of your escape is in a null state - unanswered by the roll and requring another method to resolve... which begs similar questions to the ones you ask about SCs: why make the roll at all? What does it accomplish?

Imaro said:

The horse being there is not a property of having used the ride skill...

Click to expand...

Sure, again I simplified. The fiction has properties beyond those being contested by particular mechanics. Or to put it another way - any situation has lots of properties with the potential to come into play, but which only 'matter' when they do. You're on foot in the woods or on horseback at the edge of a gorge. Neither 'matter' until you try to act.

Imaro said:

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??

Click to expand...

My view - much more like L5R. We enjoyed 4e mainly because the group combats can be a blast. A good beatdown in 4e is pretty satisfying. I tried various experiments in running it based on situation, but honestly found it much smoother when we all understood the situation was simply the pretext for the next fight.

I respect the work [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others do in their 4e games. Personally, I just run Burning Wheel, FATE or Apocalypse World when I want player driven games (which is most of the time - I'm a very lazy GM!)

Imaro said:

You've set up so many assumptions (from playstyle to what the DM thinks) that all I can say is... within the specific example you've created... you are correct... of course if I constructed an example to perfectly fit my argument... I would probably be as well.

Click to expand...

Yes, I agree. I wanted to show one of the reasons why someone would choose to narrate a gorge in response to a failure on a ride check - and that those reasons are tightly bound to the play style and what's going on in the moment at the table.

chaochou said:

My personal view? Because D&D designers (both 4e and now) have to try and marry new ideas and mechanics with a sense of tradition - and it's not always a clean or easy fit.

Click to expand...

Fair enough... though I definitely think SC's could have done with more polish and better advice before being released.

chaochou said:

Apologies - I realise a SC has multiple rolls but I shortened it to one for simplicity and brevity. However, I think the point still stands - a success or failure in your SC ride roll is both a) creating a new situation and b) telling you whether or not you are closer to escape.

Click to expand...

I still disagree with "b" here. Until the final failure or final success is rolled you have no idea what state (as it concerns the resolution of the conflict) that you are in. If you need one more success but then roll 3 failures... you have failed the SC, so you weren't any "closer" to escape than you were the first time you rolled a die in the SC as it relates to the overall conflict.

chaochou said:

Using task resolution you can just as adequately create a new situation - but the question of your escape is in a null state - unanswered by the roll and requring another method to resolve... which begs similar questions to the ones you ask about SCs: why make the roll at all? What does it accomplish?

Click to expand...

But isn't your escape in a null state with the SC as well until the final success or failure roll is made.

chaochou said:

Sure, again I simplified. The fiction has properties beyond those being contested by particular mechanics. Or to put it another way - any situation has lots of properties with the potential to come into play, but which only 'matter' when they do. You're on foot in the woods or on horseback at the edge of a gorge. Neither 'matter' until you try to act.

Click to expand...

Yes, and that is why the fiction of the "how" and it's relationship to the result can be very important to a player.

chaochou said:

My view - much more like L5R. We enjoyed 4e mainly because the group combats can be a blast. A good beatdown in 4e is pretty satisfying. I tried various experiments in running it based on situation, but honestly found it much smoother when we all understood the situation was simply the pretext for the next fight.

I respect the work @pemerton and others do in their 4e games. Personally, I just run Burning Wheel, FATE or Apocalypse World when I want player driven games (which is most of the time - I'm a very lazy GM!)

Click to expand...

Thanks for answering.

Another point that's been fully circumscribed, but perhaps lost in the shuffle: If you don't have explicit stakes and intent, then you've got implicit ones. That is, you always have stakes and intent. Some results will be appropriate or not based on those stakes and intent.

For example, let's say that it isn't discussed among the group, but it is generally understood that you are using skills in a defined way to accomplish certain tasks in the simulation. So it is assumed that Ride skill has a certain coverage--perhaps mostly from the rules in question, but maybe also from certain rulings that the DM has made in the past. Either way, when someone attempts to use Ride skill to escape, it's unlikely that the appearance of the gorge will fit. The intent is to get away. Roughly, the stakes are to use the horse to do it, or fail trying--with implicit Riding fail consequences.

When this ends and what comes after success or failure is another question I'm not really touching here, as that could be any number of things.

Contrast that to a game where the stakes and intent are more known. Let's say that the intent is to get away. Then a riding success gets the character away (or closer to it), and a failed check does not and/or ends the effort. In this situation, the gorge is entirely appropriate as a failure possibility because it directly counters the intent.

Finally, consider the same game but with intent not to get away, but rather to, say, divert the enemy from your friends while they circle around behind the enemy and enter their fortress. The character decides to use Ride skill to burst through the enemy midst and draw them off for a couple of minutes--even if this means capture. In this case, on failure the gorge isn't much use. Because failure means not that the character got caught, but that he failed to divert the enemy to let his friends succeed.

In those last two versions, all that really changed was the intent. But in the first, the gorge is respecting player agency while in the second it is not. Likewise, you can imagine an intent in the simulation version where the gorge might be more acceptable. However, because in simulation the intent is so often implicit--even glossed over, it would be pretty easy to misunderstand. Thus, the DM is going to typically avoid narrating color that might violate player agency, because he doesn't know.

Or, as has often been suggested, the DM might ask. You can see this even in a straight old school Dungeon Hack, where a DM that picks up on an odd-sounding plan may ask for clarification on the plan, so that he can better understand what it is the players are trying to do. When all you are trying to do is pick the lock or sneak by the monster, the intent is fairly obvious. However, when the party splits into three parts, casts several different spells, and then tries some outlandish stunts with rope and 10 foot poles, it may be less clear.

LostSoul said:

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 integrity 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.

Click to expand...

I think that Imaro started to answer this pretty well, so I'll play off of his reply, and your response to that.

LostSoul said:

Imaro said:

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)?

Click to expand...

2. (the first) Not really. Resources - such as feats, skill ranks, or skill training - are a meta-game resource, an abstraction of the game world (at best). They require the players and the DM to translate those resources into fiction, usually through application of action resolution mechanics - but not always.

Click to expand...

Okay, I disagree with your reply. In my RPG, I have a chart where I can look up hit die (1-20) and investment (no interest, hobby, interested, professionally skilled, exceptionally skilled), and it'll tell me what the bonus of that level will be.

Different hit die have also been given rough designations. For example, hit die 4 is "an average settled adult" while hit die 8 is "a very experienced or very well-trained adult." Knowing this, I can see that most guards might be hit die 4-8, and that "professionally skilled" in melee attack of that hit die will be (+7 to +10).

Now, with that knowledge, +7 to attack means something within the game world (no matter how you arrive at that number), which is you're about as good as attacking as the average settled adult who is professionally skilled at it (like a guard or soldier). You can use that number (+7 to attacks) as a concrete number to play off of in the world.

What this means, to me, as that while feats and skill ranks/training are a meta resource, the number they output at the end (bonus to skill/attack) can still give me something concrete to work with in the game. Basically, if the skilled rider wants to be as good as he says he is, he needs to get up to a bonus where that's reflected within the fiction. Prior to that point, he isn't as good as he aspires to be.

LostSoul said:

Imaro said:

Second, when did excellent rider = infallible rider?

Click to expand...

2. (the second) I didn't describe said character as infallible. You just did; nowhere did I say he was infallible.

I said: "In order to maintain the integrity 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."

I'm saying that the DM thinks a) that having the PC's ride fail him at this moment would be harmful to the character's integrity within the fiction and b) that the DM thinks, in this situation, the best way to maintain the PC's integrity while still using the result of the failed check is to introduce a gorge.

Click to expand...

This creates the problematic (for my group) disconnect where, after the event, the PC thinks "I need to brush up on my geography" and the PC thinks "I need to boost my Ride skill." Then, the player has the choice to act as his character would (investigate learning the local area), or as he knows will benefit his character (invest more in Ride). I don't like that at all.

LostSoul said:

Imaro said:

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?

Click to expand...

3. I assume because it's the DM's job to determine the result of failure in these specific action resolution mechanics. I think this is the case for skill challenges in 4E.

Click to expand...

I agree with this, at least as far as my own group does it. As GM, I call for the skill roll of the player, and also narrate the result of the success/failure. I don't do this, of course, without the player(s) letting me know what they want to do ("I want to attempt to speed my horse up" or "I want to find a good place to hide and then hide there"). Based on their input, I ask them to roll a skill check, and then I narrate the results of it.

LostSoul said:

Imaro said:

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?

Click to expand...

4. (the edit) Yes, this could lead to spamming skills. That is fine. Would the DM let him make another ride check? It's not really up to the DM - it depends on what the PC does.

Click to expand...

Well, within the context of a skill challenge, this may not be true. If the GM says that there's nowhere to progress by using the same skill again (you've already sped your horse up, you're already cutting corners, you're already jumping obstacles, etc.), then it might be time to use a new skill.

LostSoul said:

You can see how this technique is going to work well for certain play styles and poorly for others. I don't use this technique in my own 4E hack, for instance, because the DM in that system isn't supposed to care about the integrity of the PCs.

Click to expand...

Right, this is definitely a play style thing. I'm not saying it's wrong to play that way, and I haven't been (and I know you're saying much the same thing, and weren't questioning me at all [since you didn't quote my post]). It's purely a play style thing, and I was voicing my objection to this style of play for my group.

chaochou said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, there's two ways to go about this. One, use something like a skill challenge. The other, it's not over until you've actually escaped. Did they not find you on their Perception check after you hid? Did they start to poke around, or did they move on? It's based on what they do fictionally and the mechanical results of pursuing that fiction.

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...

Click to expand...

You can use a skill challenge system without this being the case. You can have a situation where a Geography check is called for (terrain challenging the escaping PC), and if he fails, he runs into a gorge, pass, valley, etc. This failure (or complication) is a direct result of the "appropriate" skill check: Geography (and not Ride).

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.

Click to expand...

Yes, exactly. That's why I think, if you fail with a certain skill, the fiction should represent that by giving a complication involving that skill. You failed using athletics, so you aren't climbing as fast as you could be. You failed using Ride, so you've stumbled a bit by going through rough brush that you tried to jump to save time. You failed using Geography, so you've hit a gorge.

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.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I just like it being related to the field you failed in, so you don't get that PC/player disconnect later on.

At any rate, just my take on the subject. It's what my group prefers, but that doesn't mean it's objectively right, or anything. I'm sure your guys' groups have a blast with it your way, and that's cool. As always, play what you like

The concept of player agency seems to be roughly pinned down and runs along two divergent (but not mutually exclusive) strains of thought:

1) The world needs to precisely match up to my expectations of coupled cause and effect from a simulation standpoint. If I bring specific resources to bear toward a specific end, I suspect a specific, narrow outcome to arise out of this derivation. This keeps me immersed from actor stance and properly plays out the formula of my archetype/growth through reinforcement of my expectation of the physical model's fidelity toward the simulation.

2) I have an archetype that I have composed through character build, mechanical resource deployment and through narrative explication. I expect to be able to enter author stance to pro-actively impose upon the fiction my expectations of my composed archetype with fidelity toward the model of heroic fantasy (ie LotR or Game of Thrones) that the table has accepted, replete with genre logic and trope conventions. I expect the DM to weave varying points of narrative conflict that forces me to react in actor stance while following those same constraints (genre logic and trope conventions) with fidelity toward the model of heroic fantasy that the table has accepted. This ensures the best possibility of an interesting, varying narrative whereby a dynamic story unfolds that is genre relevant and empowers me to play out the archetype I envision in my head.


I think what might be productive in this discussion is if folks break down their understanding/expectations of the micro-processes that underpin a singular skill check; both under normal circumstances and under duress. What acumen, from a physical standpoint and a formal training standpoint, is a character bringing to bear (and in what percentages of relevance) when they are:

A) On horseback at full gallop (riding? dexterity? strength?)
B) Fleeing deadly, overwhelming pursuit with precious cargo in tow and much depending upon your mission (cool? charisma?)
C) Trying to keep an eye out for treacherous terrain (nature? perception? wisdom?)
D) Trying to notice a fleeting, trail marker that indicates the pass to a lone landbridge that spans a gaping gorge (perception? knowledge local geography? wisdom? intelligence?)
E) Trying to maintain your presence of mind, spatial awareness, and multi-task your sensory faculties to perform all of these disparate but symbiotic (in this case) acts simultaneously (concentration? constitution?)


It would then probably be productive for the discussion if folks break down their understanding of and usage/application of genre/trope logic (how and why?) and genre/trope conventions (what?) within the confines of their table. Using the evasion of pursuit while on horseback to focus conversation (and not include further variables) might be a good idea.


Then we can see where this gets us when we marry the three.