The roots of 4e exposed?

AbdulAlhazred · Jul 17, 2018

Shasarak said:
By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand. The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different. And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside? I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that.

Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?

If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.

pemerton · Jul 17, 2018

Shasarak said:
If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.

There are two things here - I had determined that the only way and hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times.

The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).

The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the GM must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioning and the broader "logic" of the fiction).

Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:

pemerton said:
The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).

<snip>

The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. The ranger was adjacent, so reached out to the bear. The wizard, however, was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it. The sorcerer wanted (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to try and intimidate the bear into submission. I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear.

This example did provoke some discussion when first posted. Here is the main point and reply (I agree with the latter):

Raven Crowking said:
in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.

Victim said:
I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

<snip>

if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

When one choice is obviously superior, going for it is a pretty trivial decision.

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

AbdulAlhazred said:
Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.

That is exactly why some DMs are wary of Reflavouring and really all the Player wants to do is get cool Wolverine claws.

pemerton · Jul 17, 2018

A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the players are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.

The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "the adventure" or "the story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.

The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.

Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene-framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.

In other words, skill challenges will suck if the GM isn't establishing exciting, compelling situations that the players want to engage via their PCs.

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
There are two things here - I had determined that the only way and hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times.

The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).

The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the GM must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioning and the broader "logic" of the fiction).

Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:

The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).

<snip>

The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. The ranger was adjacent, so reached out to the bear. The wizard, however, was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it. The sorcerer wanted (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to try and intimidate the bear into submission. I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear.

Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through?

Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?

pemerton · Jul 17, 2018

Shasarak said:
Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through?

Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?

To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.

As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the players are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.

The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "the adventure" or "the story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.

I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day. Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities. At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....". 4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved. It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.

The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.

Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene-framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.

In other words, skill challenges will suck if the GM isn't establishing exciting, compelling situations that the players want to engage via their PCs.

If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise?

And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.

Sorry I am still having trouble differentiating exactly what you mean.

Aldarc · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the forward is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.

Incidentally, I don't think that "fail forward," "near success," or "success-at-a-cost" are contradictory in play, as one could implement all methods within the same game. "Success-at-a-cost," for example, is often a player-facing choice where the player decides that success is necessary and worth the risk of the cost. "Fail forward" is a GM-facing technique about interpreting the failure of die results. And incorporating both could open a lot of exciting gameplay opportunities.

Shasarak · Jul 17, 2018

pemerton said:
To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.

As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.

Ok, thats alright. I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element. Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll.

I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game. It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part. I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.

The roots of 4e exposed?

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

pemerton

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

pemerton

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

pemerton

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Aldarc

Legend

Shasarak

Banned

Similar Threads