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

[pemerton]

So, I'm going to cite D&D 5e as an example of a game with a granular resolution system based on setting -> situation that works.

Do you have an example comparable to the OP that shows how it would be resolved in 5e D&D?

My familiarity with 5e is only passing, but I am aware that there is quite a bit of contention about the proper working of the Hiding rules, which might come up in this sort of example.

If I wanted to provide an example of granular resolution, based on setting => situation, working reasonably well, I would provide an example of a classic D&D dungeon crawl. In that sort of scenario, the setting is established (via map and key) in sufficient detail for effects specified in 5' and 10' increments to be applied; there are well-understood ways in which setting leads to situation (opening doors, wandering monsters, or some "tricks" to use Gygax's jargon); there are relatively clear rules (ie movement rates) for correlating changes in position with the passage of time; and the architectural details that a map tends to foreground as elements of the fiction are highly salient to the goals of play.

There are some parts of the classic D&D rules that are not smooth in their interaction - thief hiding, other PCs hiding, surprise rules and invisibility are the most obvious/notorious. Cleaning these up shouldn't be too hard, though. I imagine there are OSR-ish games that have done so.

 

[AnotherGuy]

All it does is tell us whether or not Paynims turn up. Once they turn up, it says nothing about what they do, whether they find the hidden PCs, etc.
So it can tell you whether or not Easterlings or Rohirrim (or Paynim nomads) turn up in the PCs vicinity, but doesn't tell us whether or not they spot the PCs, or look for them, or any of the things that are actually central to resolving the situation described in the OP.

I'm not understanding. How does 4e tell you any of that?
Without invoking the mechanics how does any system tell you anything? What am I missing in this conversation?

 

[pemerton]

I'm not understanding. How does 4e tell you any of that?
Without invoking the mechanics how does any system tell you anything? What am I missing in this conversation?

Having the PCs be found by the nomads is what AW would call a hard move.

4e has clear rules for when to make a hard move in this sort of situation - namely, if the PCs lose a skill challenge. If the PCs fail a check during a challenge but haven't yet lost the challenge, the GM can also make a hard move that doesn't cause the PCs to fail at their overall goal (here, to stay hidden while they get whatever it is they're looking for in their pit).

As @AbdulAlhazred has posted upthread, Dungeon World has clear rules for this too. So do many other systems.

Rolemaster has no rule for regulating hard vs soft moves. It only has rules for telling us things like whether or not a nomad will detect a magical pit cover, if they have cast a spell within a certain distance from the pit. In the scenario described in the OP, applying those rules is, in practical terms, simply an exercise in GM decision-making. So a GM I simply decide whether to make a soft move, a hard move that doesn't thwart the PCs' goal, or the hard move - discovery! - that does.

Which, as the OP says, was not a very satisfactory experience.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Having the PCs be found by the nomads is what AW would call a hard move.

4e has clear rules for when to make a hard move in this sort of situation - namely, if the PCs lose a skill challenge. If the PCs fail a check during a challenge but haven't yet lost the challenge, the GM can also make a hard move that doesn't cause the PCs to fail at their overall goal (here, to stay hidden while they get whatever it is they're looking for in their pit).

As @AbdulAlhazred has posted upthread, Dungeon World has clear rules for this too. So do many other systems.

Rolemaster has no rule for regulating hard vs soft moves. It only has rules for telling us things like whether or not a nomad will detect a magical pit cover, if they have cast a spell within a certain distance from the pit. In the scenario described in the OP, applying those rules is, in practical terms, simply an exercise in GM decision-making. So a GM I simply decide whether to make a soft move, a hard move that doesn't thwart the PCs' goal, or the hard move - discovery! - that does.

Which, as the OP says, was not a very satisfactory experience.

I cannot comment on RM, as I only played a handful of sessions, but D&D has evolved to

• Inform the DM of the XP budget required between character levels;
• Inform the DM of the adventuring day encounter budget;
• Inform the DM of calibrating encounter difficulty for a party;
• Inform the DM of the difficulty of skill check DCs; and
• likely a few other things I'm currently forgetting.

It's approach to roleplaying from the DM's perspective is free-form, less structured but informed by other factors than just dice.

In your example, the narrative (1) along with taking the above into account (2) and perhaps other factors (3) will steer the type of move (soft, moderate, hard) being initiated.
(1) When I'm referring to the narrative, I mean the question becomes why are they (the nomads) there? Is it a mere patrol? Were the PCs aware of patrols being done in the area beforehand? Did the nomads notice something in the distance? Were they informed of the PCs presence? Do they generally cast detect magic on a routine patrol? If not, is it not fair to first use their passive perception to see if they noticed any disturbances before expending resources? That is what I mean by narrative.

(2) When I'm referring to taking the above into account - If the nomads could be easily dispatched by the PCs, then this encounter is merely colour and not worth the RP time to run through, right? If they are indeed a challenge, what are the risks? Can one get away and report the PCs? PC death an option? Is this merely a challenge for resource (including time) attrition? if yes how hard or soft a move maybe determined depending on the adventuring day budget/milestone that needs to be satisfied.

(3) Other factors could be in-game campaign length, real-time limitations and table desires. What I mean by the latter is, if the DM is reading the table, and there is an itch amongst the players for combat, he/she may in the interest of fun introduce a scenario where combat could be a possibility should the PCs desire it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you have an example comparable to the OP that shows how it would be resolved in 5e D&D?

Not on hand from experience.

My familiarity with 5e is only passing, but I am aware that there is quite a bit of contention about the proper working of the Hiding rules, which might come up in this sort of example.

IMO, That contention is because the hiding rules don’t always give a ‘versimilitude ’ preferred result, not because they don’t say what to do.

If I wanted to provide an example of granular resolution, based on setting => situation, working reasonably well, I would provide an example of a classic D&D dungeon crawl. In that sort of scenario, the setting is established (via map and key) in sufficient detail for effects specified in 5' and 10' increments to be applied; there are well-understood ways in which setting leads to situation (opening doors, wandering monsters, or some "tricks" to use Gygax's jargon); there are relatively clear rules (ie movement rates) for correlating changes in position with the passage of time; and the architectural details that a map tends to foreground as elements of the fiction are highly salient to the goals of play.

There are some parts of the classic D&D rules that are not smooth in their interaction - thief hiding, other PCs hiding, surprise rules and invisibility are the most obvious/notorious. Cleaning these up shouldn't be too hard, though. I imagine there are OSR-ish games that have done so.

I’m not talking about a single example where it works. I’m talking about it always working with the game.

 

[MarkB]

Establishing what they want is already a complex task in a setting => situation approach. Because of "who's playing them", questions of adversarialism, or what it is fair to suppose that a group of dozens or hundreds of nomads might have learned from (eg) Dream spells and Guess spells and whatever else is conceivably going on in the fiction, are highly relevant. The contrast here is with @AbdulAlhazred's examples of Dungeon World resolution, where what they want can be established, in part at least, as a consequence of resolution rather than an input into it.

And even once that is resolved, there is then the question of establishing what they do and where they do it, in a case where I - the player of them - know what they should be doing and where they should be doing it. If I was a player in that context, having learned the location of the treasure by reading ahead in the module, I'd be a cheater!

I find this line of thought utterly foreign to my experience of GMing any game system. Part of the GM's job is to embody any creature in the world other than the PCs. In some systems that embodiment may have constraints based upon the shared fiction, but generally speaking, it's up to you to decide the motivations and actions of any NPC. That's not something that can be comprehensively hard-coded into the rules.

As for 'cheating' because you're acting from a position of superior knowledge, that's just an occupational hazard of running a game. You always know more than the players, and any time they discuss their plans in front of you, you're privy to knowledge of their actions and intentions that none of the NPCs you're playing have access to.

Being able to separate that knowledge from your in-character decision making is a basic skill for GMs, and for players too.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't get it. If it's already been established that an encounter occurs, then presumably the parties are aware of each other and the possibility of hiding no longer applies.

If the parties are not yet aware of each other, then you haven't established that an encounter will occur and can use the avoidance/activity system to determine whether it does.

This depends on how you are defining encounter. If you are defining it as combat/conflict, then you would be correct. If on the other hand you are defining it as "in the same area as the PCs," then conflict isn't necessary. Personally as both a player and DM, if a monster shows up and is spotted by the party who then hides successfully from it, I count that as an encounter. They encountered a monster that they hid from.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not sure what you mean by "vague" here. As per the instructions given to GMs in the Scholar's Guide (p 139), part of preparing an adventure scenario in Torchbearer includes coming up with ideas for twists:

Plan Twists
As you finish planning out your problems and obstacles, try to imagine some of the possible twists that might happen should the characters
blunder around.​

I assume that you are referring to this:
There is nothing vague about this. The instructions to GMs are clear. I had followed them. A player failed a roll. As per the rules of the game, I (as GM) decided whether to allow success with a condition or impose a twist, and I opted for a twist. Which was Megloss showing up.

At no point was it unclear whose job it is to decide what happens next, nor what parameters govern that decision.

I think what is hard for people who don't do this sort of GMing is to grasp the power and importance of PRINCIPLES and AGENDA (not GNS agenda, just that which is particular to a given game). So, Torchbearer 2, I haven't read all of the thing in great detail because I haven't run it, but Dungeon World is a poster child for doing this VERY VERY explicitly. P 161 is a bullet list of the three agenda elements, and P 162 likewise the Principles. They are all explained well in that section "The GM" starting on P 159. It also describes the GM's 'moves' (which are really just techniques, DW even says they're not canonical in any way, and don't have any mechanics attached to them). In fact the GM doesn't really GET mechanics to do his job. He can EMPLOY the player-facing mechanics, etc. but there are no charts, tables, die rolls, etc. on the GM side of most of these sorts of games. You follow the agenda! You use the Principles! Whenever the GM in a DW (etc) game needs to do something, the game will tell you that, and there will be these guides to follow. Yes, GM's make decisions about the nature, pace, and significance of fiction in many cases, but this is NOT 'unclear', it is NOT 'arbitrary'. If you fail to Portray a Fantastic World, you are BREAKING THE RULES of Dungeon World! Just as surely as a classic D&D GM who invents a trap and springs it on the thief when it wasn't marked there just to be mean.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

"1) Avoidance roll — the PC group makes a “avoidance” dice roll and applies the appropriate modifiers to get an adjusted result;
2) Activity roll — the GM then makes an “activity” roll and applies the proper modifiers to get an adjusted result;
3) Roll comparison — the GM compares the two adjusted rolls;
4) Negative differential — if the avoidance roll exceeds the activity roll there is a negative differential and no chance of an encounter and the table is not used, and any pursuit is thrown off or avoided. This may be modified due to an unusual circumstance, or if there is a tracker in the pursuing group.
5) Positive differential — if the activity roll exceeds the avoidance roll there is a positive differential and the Standard Encounter Chart is consulted."

What causes the avoidance roll? As it is written there, that seems to be for whether there is or is not an encounter at all, not for what happens when there is an encounter. The stalk/hide, camouflage, perception, tracking, etc. rules would seem to come into play if the encounter was happening and/or for situations outside of an encounter if the party wanted to track a group of bandits or something.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

I think perhaps we are back at adapting the existing rules. Putting up a rock "floor" above you to hide you and the pit you are in seems very much like an attempt at camouflaging what is happening to make it look like desert floor. Adapting the Camouflage vs. Locate Hidden seems appropriate.