An example where granular resolution based on setting => situation didn't work

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I don't understand the whole fascination that some people have with applying rules that are meant to produce narrative and explore fiction when applied by PCs being applied AT ALL by NPCs. I honestly confess, even in my early days as a GM I never did that or thought it would be a good idea. So, I wouldn't consider that kind of thing as a very good option, myself. The game is about the PCs and the players telling me what they do, etc.

The game is also about the world the PCs inhabit, and that world goes on without them if they aren't there...or if they are there and do nothing.

Right, which is why I posit that something has to happen, the players have to do something, or encounter some consequence that will move the situation along at some point. Now in Dungeon World the GM can simply make a move if the players essentially 'forfeit' theirs, and this is an explicitly described situation. It COULD also fall under 'Golden Opportunity', which is a rule where if a player describes a course of action which clearly ignores potential danger, then the GM is free to bring it down on them even if they DO describe some other unrelated action.

Shouldn't there still be a chance, though, that if the PCs do nothing except stay quiet the riders will miss them and just move on?

Like if I tell you a dragon is flying your way and you then describe to me how you unroll your picnic blanket, guess who's going to show up for tea?!

This assumes the dragon a) sees me, b) happens to be hungry at the moment, and c) doesn't have something more important to do; and while all three of these are fairly likely, none are outright guaranteed.

Bringing it back to this case, I think I suggested maybe just having the Paynims camp nearby might be a fairly neutral 'soft move' kind of action. I'd consider this if the PCs simply don't do anything. Now they can either try to keep digging discretely, try to leave unobserved, or whatever. It has the virtue of leaving things at a relatively low level of tension, providing plenty of room to ramp things up again. It would be a pacing thing though. If things need to be kicked up a notch, just have them find the PCs, that's a PERFECTLY legitimate move!

Having the Paynims camp nearby is one of many possible random outcomes should they not initially notice the PCs' presence (or - even better - maybe they did notice and are faking that they didn't while a few go for reinforcements; "making camp" nearby is just their excuse to stay in the area and keep an eye on things).

 

[pemerton]

Ah, OK, so I assumed there was some sort of 'evasion' aspect to it. In 1e AD&D at the start of an encounter there's a decision point where each side declares 'evade', 'fight', or 'parley'. Admittedly the 1e evade rules don't contemplate evasion by means of stealth, it really doesn't have a way to handle that sort of tactic, except maybe extrapolating surprise, but I was under the impression Arms/Character Law did have something like that.

I think it's clearly inspired by the classic D&D rules, but it tries to wrap that into the encounter check.

The fact that there are distinct rules for the use of Stalk/Hide and Camouflage skills and for Perception/Tracking/Locate Hidden skills only makes matters worse.

my spin is that narrative focus systems of the PbtA, FitD, or even Torchbearer (I don't know if that can be extrapolated to BW generally) variety all have a 'generalized conflict resolver' kind of setup (BW/TB have several flavors you can sometimes choose from).

Right. In Torchbearer this could be resolved as a particular sort of conflict - say Flee/Pursue. In BW it would be linked tests, and/or the use of spells to grant advantage dice, feeding into an overall resolution against an appropriate difficulty.

In MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic it would be handled via Scene Distinctions, and I think would potentially be quite colourful in resolution.

You've already given a good account of how it might look in DW.

 

[pemerton]

Ah, but we see what we are adding as an obviously implied part of the granular resolution.

Um, adapting the rules does not imply adapting them away from granular resolution...

In RM the rule for a Detect Magic-type spell is generally one 5' R area scanned per 10 second round, with the spell lasting one minute (6 rounds) per caster level. The scanning range is 50' or 100' depending on which spell list the caster is using.

This is clearly designed to be resolved in a dungeon or similar sort of area which is mapped and keyed to a high degree of detail, in a context where it is certain that it has been cast (because a player has declared such casting as an action).

Saying that the nomads have some X% chance to use this spell to scan the hidden area (and thereby detect the PCs' magic) is not applying the granular resolution framework. It's doing something else quite different.

 

[pemerton]

If the system provides the possibility of an encounter occurring in which the parties are not mutually aware of each other, but provides no resolution mechanic for stealth/detection once that scenario has been established, that sounds like a deficiency in this specific system rather than in the nature of granular resolution mechanics in general.

As I've posted upthread (I think multiple times), there are rules for resolving Camouflage vs Locate Hidden. Among other things, they depend on knowing how far the would-be Locator is from the Hidden thing.

They are designed for resolving an attempt by a PC to find a secret door in a dungeon, or similar sorts of things. They are simply not designed to resolve a non-granularly characterised situation of trying to remain hidden in a magically-covered pit while a group of nomads rides about the area on horseback.

 

[MarkB]

As I've posted upthread (I think multiple times), there are rules for resolving Camouflage vs Locate Hidden. Among other things, they depend on knowing how far the would-be Locator is from the Hidden thing.

They are designed for resolving an attempt by a PC to find a secret door in a dungeon, or similar sorts of things. They are simply not designed to resolve a non-granularly characterised situation of trying to remain hidden in a magically-covered pit while a group of nomads rides about the area on horseback.

If the PCs weren't hidden you'd have to determine the nomads' location, right? Place them down relative to each other and then determine how the nomads move based upon the PCs' actions?

So what's stopping you from placing them down without them knowing where the PCs are? Determining how they move in the absence of PCs' actions? That gets you their location for the Locate Hidden check.

 

[Pedantic]

As I've posted upthread (I think multiple times), there are rules for resolving Camouflage vs Locate Hidden. Among other things, they depend on knowing how far the would-be Locator is from the Hidden thing.

They are designed for resolving an attempt by a PC to find a secret door in a dungeon, or similar sorts of things. They are simply not designed to resolve a non-granularly characterised situation of trying to remain hidden in a magically-covered pit while a group of nomads rides about the area on horseback.

Are you suggesting the situation can't be granularly characterized because the PCs are static and the NPCs aren't? That's just not correct. You can make decisions for the NPCs, and it's pretty standard procedure to do so.

Once you've established what they want and what they can do, how is the process of their resolution any different than if they were PCs, outside of who's playing them?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I take him to mean that the avoidance/encounter rules are just for 'travel'. It would be like applying the D&D rules for random encounters while traveling to resolve whether an encounter occurs within a dungeon.

At least if I'm understanding correctly.

Yeah well part of the problem, I suspect, would analogize to 1e AD&D like how do you avoid a fight by stealth? There's no real rules for this, and because the AD&D rules are all very specific you constantly run into this problem. If a situation is slightly different than the one Gary envisaged, then the system doesn't have an answer. This means it's less game and more endless creative, and GM serving, design. Contrast with Dungeon World where the rules are general instead of particular. We always know moves will be made, the question is only what fiction will attach and what will the dice tell us about the next move? No rules judgment, extrapolation, etc. need ever take place. If there's a disagreement it's about the fiction and direction of play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The game is also about the world the PCs inhabit, and that world goes on without them if they aren't there...or if they are there and do nothing.

Shouldn't there still be a chance, though, that if the PCs do nothing except stay quiet the riders will miss them and just move on?

This assumes the dragon a) sees me, b) happens to be hungry at the moment, and c) doesn't have something more important to do; and while all three of these are fairly likely, none are outright guaranteed.

Having the Paynims camp nearby is one of many possible random outcomes should they not initially notice the PCs' presence (or - even better - maybe they did notice and are faking that they didn't while a few go for reinforcements; "making camp" nearby is just their excuse to stay in the area and keep an eye on things).

Right, my DW analysis states that it's possible to play this as a single player move which disposes of the whole Paynim issue on the spot. Given the low myth style of DW, and the necessity of continuing challenges the question in DW is more about pacing and drama. I can't say what I would do, it would require being at that table. Maybe the dig is the best thing to focus on. Maybe the Paynims will return at an awkward moment!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If the PCs weren't hidden you'd have to determine the nomads' location, right? Place them down relative to each other and then determine how the nomads move based upon the PCs' actions?

So what's stopping you from placing them down without them knowing where the PCs are? Determining how they move in the absence of PCs' actions? That gets you their location for the Locate Hidden check.

But this is exactly the point, you're going to have to draw up an entire tactical map, decide where everything is, just to roll a few dice. And this whole chain of decisions is highly dispositive such that it likely amounts to the GM just declaring a result. This is hardly what I would call a game design 'win'.

 

[MarkB]

But this is exactly the point, you're going to have to draw up an entire tactical map, decide where everything is, just to roll a few dice. And this whole chain of decisions is highly dispositive such that it likely amounts to the GM just declaring a result. This is hardly what I would call a game design 'win'.

Why would you need to draw up a tactical map? The check as described depends upon range, not precise positioning. The only question that needs to be answered before rolling it is "how close do the nomads come to the PCs?" No need for a tactical map to determine that.