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

Hussar said:

As I look at the example given - that of the chasm appearing after a failed ride check - isn't this entirely up to the DM and the social contract at the table? This isn't a mechanical issue particularly at all. ... You simply choose results that make the most sense for that table. So, the process bunch chooses results like, "fell off the horse", or whatnot and the more narrative crowd chooses other results.

Click to expand...

I think the chasm example was hyperbole to make the point clear. A skill-challenge-ending failed ride check might be described as the enemy simply catching up to you because you couldn't get quite enough extra speed out of your mount, or it could be that, in your headlong flight, your horse broke its leg in a gopher hole. A not-previously-placed-by-the-DM gopher hole doesn't illustrate the idea that the world is being defined by the check result as clearly as the chasm does, but it is the same thing (not just in the sense of being a hole in the ground), the difference being one of degree.

chaochou said:

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...

Click to expand...

This kind of thing was my inspiration for the "I don't like Fortune-in-the-Middle" post, and that post (terminology quibbles aside) pretty much illustrates my personal problem with that idea of "conflict resolution."

Screwing with the chronology of cause-and-effect, removing the element of tension from the future, and (perhaps most importantly) breaking the reinforcing principles of call-and-response gameplay all make what you've described as "conflict resolution" a non-starter for my games.

Meanwhile, arriving at the answer to the question "Do I Escape?" by cause-and-effect, call-and-response collaborative storytelling and retaining the element of tension when current actions affecting future outcomes is invaluable.

I think it's mechanics based in such that rules can be written to assume or encourage the use of one or the other. And if the rules lean too strongly toward "conflict resolution," it creates a rules system I cannot be very content in playing. It's also true that if it leans too strongly toward "task resolution" that it creates an unworkable system for me. There is a sweet spot somewhere between "Here is a table to determine the quality of horseshoes your mount is given" and "Roll whatever and we'll make some garbage up and that'll be what happens."

This is kind of about the level of abstraction, as well.

5e CAN unite the base, I think, if it gets a good sliding scale for that, and masters the psychological trick of providing rules without seeming to restrain more abstract tables and allowing abstraction without seeming to unmoor more concrete tables. Labeling everything as an optional module is certainly a start.

Kamikaze Midget said:

This kind of thing was my inspiration for the "I don't like Fortune-in-the-Middle" post, and that post (terminology quibbles aside) pretty much illustrates my personal problem with that idea of "conflict resolution."

Screwing with the chronology of cause-and-effect, removing the element of tension from the future, and (perhaps most importantly) breaking the reinforcing principles of call-and-response gameplay all make what you've described as "conflict resolution" a non-starter for my games.

Meanwhile, arriving at the answer to the question "Do I Escape?" by cause-and-effect, call-and-response collaborative storytelling and retaining the element of tension when current actions affecting future outcomes is invaluable.

I think it's mechanics based in such that rules can be written to assume or encourage the use of one or the other. And if the rules lean too strongly toward "conflict resolution," it creates a rules system I cannot be very content in playing. It's also true that if it leans too strongly toward "task resolution" that it creates an unworkable system for me. There is a sweet spot somewhere between "Here is a table to determine the quality of horseshoes your mount is given" and "Roll whatever and we'll make some garbage up and that'll be what happens."

This is kind of about the level of abstraction, as well.

5e CAN unite the base, I think, if it gets a good sliding scale for that, and masters the psychological trick of providing rules without seeming to restrain more abstract tables and allowing abstraction without seeming to unmoor more concrete tables. Labeling everything as an optional module is certainly a start.

Click to expand...

I think, if I'm following everything right, that this is what I'm saying. Here's a place where I have no problems dumping it onto the group and/or the DM. I'm not a big fan of that sometimes, by, in this case, I have no real problem. The mechanics are simply silent on what actually happens when you fail a check. All that that mechanics say is that you failed. Why not make it explicit that it's up to the DM and the group to determine what failure means.

Which could be rolling on the random (w)horse table, or it could be purely narrative "make **** up". I think that a fairly abstract set of very broad skills ends up where everyone wants it to, simply by making the DM an integral part of task/conflict resolution.

Hussar said:

I think, if I'm following everything right, that this is what I'm saying. Here's a place where I have no problems dumping it onto the group and/or the DM. I'm not a big fan of that sometimes, by, in this case, I have no real problem. The mechanics are simply silent on what actually happens when you fail a check. All that that mechanics say is that you failed. Why not make it explicit that it's up to the DM and the group to determine what failure means.

Which could be rolling on the random (w)horse table, or it could be purely narrative "make **** up". I think that a fairly abstract set of very broad skills ends up where everyone wants it to, simply by making the DM an integral part of task/conflict resolution.

Click to expand...

I can't XP yet, but I agree. My skill system (and skill challenge system) could very easily handle it the way I handle it, personally, or the way that the "gorge" method that has been discussed handles it. It's much more of a social contract or play style issue than mechanical issue. If anything, it should be covered by an advice sidebar (or, really, a sidebar informing people of different styles), not by hard rules. Why bother with hard rules when you can hit multiple groups with one rule set? As always, play what you like

Imaro said:

Edit: On further examination of your statement, I find I am also curious about how do you handle conflicts that arise between player and DM genre/trope logic? It seems this could cause just as many or even more issues as simulation logic being applied.

Click to expand...

Sorry I neglected to respond to this. Completely slipped my mind.

Social contract. Mostly implied but sometimes hashed out verbally. My circle of players contracted dramatically over the years (primarily due to steady tenure of the primary players but secondarily due to taste refinement of myself and my primary players...and our lack of tolerance for certain...ermm...behavioral dispositions of new players) so this has been relatively easy. All of that being said, with newer players you'll have to be up front and open. You will have to confront this social contract verbally and you'll have to be open, honest, and able to effectively articulate your point of view...and listen in turn. At that point, you can determine if the new player is a good fit (same formula as anything else...I'm sure this isn't new to you).

Genre trope logic is primarily a matter of taste and mutual understanding of superficial genre elements. If you can accept the shallow nature of the philosophies that underwrite these genre/trope logics then you can also more willingly accept a margin of error between interpretations. In my experience this is much easier to agree on than * the stringent fidelity of a simulation toward modelling the complexities of physical processes.

I have yet to have any genre/trope logic issues emerge either at the table or after the session. However, I have had more than my fair share of discussions regarding * both at the table and after the session. I suspect my gaming table is the same as most others. A few opinionated "alpha gamers", maybe one beta, and a smattering of cappas and deltas. So long as you and the alphas have a firm understanding, the rest typically fall in line and just want to pal around, roll dice, contribute now and then...but mostly just be along for the ride.

Yeah, I have to agree with MBC here. There's no way mechanics are going to resolve genre issues at the table. Not without being so stringently lockstep that no one is happy. Making sure that everyone is on the same page, or at least the same ballpark, is probably the most important thing any group can do.

It's something I hope that the 5e DMG addresses very expressly. The idea of a "group template" where everyone creates characters that no only fit with the game, but fit with each other and genre expectations is a very, very good idea.

Thinking back to the many, many disruptions I've had (or instigated ) around the table, I think that this is probably the number one culprit.

Hussar said:

The mechanics are simply silent on what actually happens when you fail a check.

Click to expand...

But they aren't silent on under what circumstances you make a check, and what that check represents.

For instance, take an attack roll in early editions. The rules aren't silent on what that represents: a round's worth of strikes, parries, near-misses, feints, and flinches, all condensed to a 1d20 roll to determine if you pierce the enemy's defenses enough to cause some damage (leaving aside for the moment that the damage caused might also be a near-miss, a parry, a feint, or a flinch).

This is closer to "conflict resolution" than rolling for each parry or feint would be. It's also closer to "task resolution" than just rolling a d20 to determine which side wins the fight would be.

Meanwhile, the prone status in 4e is closer to "conflict resolution" than that attack roll, because the prone status is silent -- and damn near contradictory -- on what that word represents. It might represent any number of things that cause a creature to be immobilized and take a melee attack penalty and gain a bonus vs. ranged attacks and lose a move action. It MUST represent a variety of things, because it can apply on things that can't be knocked prone in the usual English-language meaning of the world. It CANNOT be used in a way that is closer to "task resolution."

Similarly, something like the grapple rules or treasure rules in 3e or the OA rules in either 3e or 4e resist being used in a way that is closer to "conflict resolution." In order to play the game in a way that isn't weirdly unhinged, you must play with these detailed task resolution mechanics which ultimately answer very broad questions: "Can the squid hold onto Krusk? Can Mialee cast her spell? Ultimately, do they both die before the squid, or does the squid bite it first? And ultimately, do they recover the Sacred Pearl, or do they die trying? And ultimately, do they reach the next level, or not?" Can't know the answer to any of those without rolling some grapple checks or provoking some OAs and dealing with reach!

The mechanics do affect how much of which kind of game you get to play.

One of 5e's neatest (and toughest) tricks would be to say, "Y'know what: it doesn't matter how granular you want your checks. Here's rules that work at any level of focus. Run the game how you want. Here's detail for those who want it and it's clearly marked as non-essential for those who don't and everything in between and it all works just fine. Here's a Wealth Bonus mechanic that is functionally equivalent to tracking every copper piece in your moth-eaten coin purse. Here's every tenth of a pound of chalk for you to track (and make sure you consume them with each spell that uses chalk you cast!), and here's a broad Encumbrance mechanic that is functionally equivalent. Here's a way to keep track of each individual HP, and here's just a way to keep track of how close to death you are without worrying about the precise points. And here's a bunch of spaces in between, too."

That is something that can be left up to the individual group, but it's something that the rules need to enable and get out of the way of, simultaneously.

Hussar said:

I think that a fairly abstract set of very broad skills ends up where everyone wants it to, simply by making the DM an integral part of task/conflict resolution.

Click to expand...

Forcing the DM to take a heavy-handed "rulings, not rules" approach is ALSO forcing a particular playstyle. As I've said elsewhere, I don't want to have to decide "what makes sense" on every little action that the PC's attempt. They should be able to roll some dice and tell me the outcome without me having to do squat. Of course, if I WANT to do squat, I need to be able to, seamlessly, as well.

Again, I think it's possible for 5e to do this, but it's not as trivial as shrugging the shoulders and leaving it up to whoever to do whatever. 3e had Rule Zero, and many DM's -- rational people! -- still felt constrained by rules. 4e had official rules for Quest XP and many DM's -- rational people! -- still felt like it was a glorified minis skirmish game.

The game needs to be designed for this.

Imaro said:

You've continuously brought up a single example from the rules compendium/DM book from the 4e essentials line. I'm curious if there is any similar example for SC's in either the DMG 1 or DMG 2?

Click to expand...

Here is an extract from the example of play in the DMG (p 77):


There are two elements of non-process, narrative causation here (both pertaining to the narration of success rather than failure).

First, the successful Diplomacy triggers rumination by the Duke on a past battle. This is not the process result of anything said by Player 1's PC. It is the GM injecting additional material for the players to work with, in response to a successful check.

Second, there is the granting of a +2 to Player 3's Bluff check because of something said by Player 2's PC following Player 2's successful History check. This is obviously not process simulation, for two reasons: (i) it is not as if, in the fiction, Player 2's PC's recollection of the Duke's success in a past battle makes him more easily duped (she has not got him drunk, for example, nor set out to get him off his guard); (ii) the GM announces that the +2 is available before Player 3 announces his PC's action. The +2 is happening at the metagame level, letting the players build up narrative momentum from check to check.

So to answer your implied question: that skill challenges were intended to be adjudicated in a narrative/metagame fashion (like the complex conflict resolution mechanics in HeroWars/Quest, for example) rather than via pure process simulations was clear from the beginning, although the techniques and details have never been spelled out - being left to be inferred from the (very underdeveloped) examples of play.

I think at least part of the reason is the one that chaochou has suggested, namely, a hesitation on WoTC's part to put all their cards on the table because they didn't want to be seen to be doing something too radical in comparison to the past.

chaochou said:

Now as far as I'm aware at least some of the advice and ideas around skill challenges was written by Robin Laws. This is the same designer who wrote HeroWars back in 2000/1.

<snip>

So, with Laws at least on board in some capacity in 4e I find it staggering that Skill Challenges were so badly explained. Was it due to a process of writing, rewriting and editing? Was it that the publisher shied away from explaining the fundamental ideas of conflict resolution, because it would be, at minimum, a tacit acceptance of the limitations of the previously canonical task resolution?

Click to expand...

I think Laws only got involved in the DMG2. And parts of that are cribbed almost word-for-word from HeroQuest revised (discussion of the pass/fail cycle, especially). The disappointing thing is that no attempt is made to adapt that discussion either to skill challenge adjudication (they are discussed in a different chapter of DMG2) or to 4e mechanics more generally (eg in 4e there is no immediate way to just adjust monster stats based on pass/fail - for the XP rules to work, for example, such adjustment needs to be mediated via level adjustments, change of status to a minion or an elite, etc).

Crazy Jerome said:

I think GURPS does as fine a job of dealing with this, while staying on its process-simulation roots, as any game, ever. But GURPS has its kludges and quirks, and most of them are prompted by pushing process-simulation to the maximum. It's "Default Skill Rule" is one example, that doesnt hold up under deep scrutiny, but does patch a rather vivid hole with a nice illusion.

Click to expand...

I don't know GURPS especially well. What is the Default Skill Rule?

Hussar said:

I think, if I'm following everything right, that this is what I'm saying. Here's a place where I have no problems dumping it onto the group and/or the DM. I'm not a big fan of that sometimes, by, in this case, I have no real problem. The mechanics are simply silent on what actually happens when you fail a check. All that that mechanics say is that you failed. Why not make it explicit that it's up to the DM and the group to determine what failure means.

Click to expand...

If this is done in a mechanics free way, then I think it will have gaps and limitations.

For example, look at the example of the negotiation with the Duke that I posted above: a group can't be expected to work out that 1 successful check produces a +2 on another player's ingame-causally-unrelated check simply via social contract. This is an issue of the maths of the game which the designers have to address and then explain.

Manbearcat said:

Social contract. Mostly implied but sometimes hashed out verbally.

<snip>

Genre trope logic is primarily a matter of taste and mutual understanding of superficial genre elements. If you can accept the shallow nature of the philosophies that underwrite these genre/trope logics then you can also more willingly accept a margin of error between interpretations. In my experience this is much easier to agree on than * the stringent fidelity of a simulation toward modelling the complexities of physical processes.

Click to expand...

Yes.

Genre permissions and limitations can also be suggested and reinforced by other mechanically-supported story events. For example, in my 4e game the fighter and paladin have been able to hold their own against multiple goblin phalanxes. This gives some sense of their physical prowess - somewhat superhuman! - which then informs other judgements about what they can do.

The spells that are available to the sorcerer and wizard play a similar role (eg if the sorcerer can produce a cyclonic vortex once per encounter, or turn himself into a spark form and arc through the air zapping his enemies, this gives us some idea of the scope of his magic, and what he can use it to do).

As is often the case for him!, LostSoul said something very insightful about 4e and genre expectations in a post a few weeks ago:

LostSoul said:

How the imagined content in the game changes in 4E as the characters gain levels isn't quite the same as it is in 3E. I am not going to pretend to have a good grasp of how this works in either system, but my gut says: in 4E the group defines the colour of their campaign as they play it; in 3E it's established when the campaign begins.

That's kind of confusing... let me see if I can clarify as I work this idea out for myself.

In 3E, climbing a hewn rock wall is DC 25. That doesn't change as the game is played (that is, as fiction is created, the game world is explored, and characters grow). Just because it's DC 120 to balance on a cloud doesn't mean that characters can't attempt it at 1st level; they'll just always fail. The relationship between colour and the reward system doesn't change over time: you know that, if you can score a DC 120 balance check, you can balance on clouds; a +1 to your Balance check brings you that much closer to success.

In 4E, I think the relationship between colour and the reward system changes: you don't know what it will mean, when you first start playing, to make a Hard Level 30 Acrobatics check. Which means that gaining levels doesn't have a defined relationship with what your PC can do in the fiction - just because your Acrobatics check has increased by 1, it doesn't mean you're that much closer to balancing on a cloud. I think the group needs to define that for themselves; as far as I can tell, this is supposed to arise organically through play, and go through major shifts as Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies enter the game.

Click to expand...

At least in my game, this is exactly how it has worked, right down to arising organically, with major shifts triggered by paragon paths (and, I expect in due course, epic destinies).

pemerton said:

I don't know GURPS especially well. What is the Default Skill Rule?

Click to expand...

Without quoting a bunch of rules text...

The basic idea is that some skills are related. As such, some skills can stand in for other skills, but at a diminished level.

For example, let's say I need to making a riding check. I do not have the riding skill, but I do have the handle animal skill. As such, I can use handle animal (at a small penalty) in place of riding.