Actual play examples - balance between fiction and mechanics

[pemerton]

For example, in a "fiction-first" system, the sorcerer's attempt to intimidate would tend to work against the wizard's and ranger's attempt to soothe. In a "rules-first" system, one ignores the dichotomy.

The dichotomy was discussed. No one at my table is an expert on bear psychology, but it was generally agreed that one way one can calm a ranging bear was by establishing dominance over it through a display of power. (This is in part a concession to the game which is, I think, somewhat independent of fiction first.) We actually had a bear taming episode one other time in the game. On both occasions, the different approaches by PC do make a difference downstream to the relationship with the bear - it is scared of one lot of PCs, and friends with the others, and this affects (eg) who it might try to help in a subsequent combat.

Also, 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.

Agree with this - I'm not sure it will always be true (especially, if healing surges aren't really at risk in the skill chalenge, that could be a difference from combat) but it may often be true. This is one reason why I think 4e isn't that much of a gamist system.

 

[pemerton]

This is where the skill challenge game mechanic loses me. So it's been decided that to get rid of the weird is a particular difficulty regardless of player tactic?

I don't see how this is radically different from giving a monster hit points. Regardless of tactics, a certain number of damage dice must still be rolled and tallied.

But to say that tactics don't matter doesn't seem right to me. If the PCs had decided, instead, to try and purge the spirit, then it would never have got to the point where the dwarf fighter could finish things by jumping into the water and pushing the stones down. How is that not making a difference?

To me, the very core of pen-and-paper RPGs is both making meaningful decisions, and seeing the consequences of your actions, with the outcome serving as input for further decisions.

When the consequences of your actions are just ticking down some hidden tally, whether it is a "mountain of hit points" (to quote the text above) or a Skill Challenge success count, the illusion just snaps.

I don't want to know that my roll brought some kind of abstract goal closer - I want to know what are the consequences of what I just did, and how do they differ from all other possible choices I could have made.

I thought I explained this in quite a bit of detail. Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a pretty big difference between standing next to a pool of water saying a prayer to Moradin to purge a spirit (the dwarf is a multi-class cleric and so is trained in Religion, and so might have tried this), and jumping into the water using your axe as a construction tool.

I also explained the consequences, and how subsequent checks exploited those consequences, in some detail.

 

[Nagol]

I don't see how this is radically different from giving a monster hit points. Regardless of tactics, a certain number of damage dice must still be rolled and tallied.

That's never been true -- save or die/suck, battlefield control via terrain or magic, and avoidance rather than confrontation have always been part of the game. Reducing hit points was an option and usually the default option if nothing better presented itself.

But to say that tactics don't matter doesn't seem right to me. If the PCs had decided, instead, to try and purge the spirit, then it would never have got to the point where the dwarf fighter could finish things by jumping into the water and pushing the stones down. How is that not making a difference?

The situation and narrative may focus on others, but the amount of stress and difficulty aren't altered. Instead of the Dwarf pushing on stone, you might have him forcing out the vestiges of the spirit whilst holding his breath.

I thought I explained this in quite a bit of detail. Maybe it's just me, but I think there's a pretty big difference between standing next to a pool of water saying a prayer to Moradin to purge a spirit (the dwarf is a multi-class cleric and so is trained in Religion, and so might have tried this), and jumping into the water using your axe as a construction tool.

I also explained the consequences, and how subsequent checks exploited those consequences, in some detail.

As I said in another thread, the fundamental difference for me is the focus of thought. I'm most used to "How can I exploit this situation" versus "How can I use my strengths". The seeming liberal interpretations of powers (I have no point of comparison from other 4e games, but Come and Get It affecting water flow? really?) can lead to interesting resolutions, but shifts the player focus back onto the character and how it can interact incidentally with the situation. As a player, I prefer to focus on the situation and determine how I wish to engage it.

 

[Macbeth]

Those are some great examples. It does strike me that the flow of information is kind of lopsided.

I'm thinking about the rules as a big block on the left and the fiction as a big cloud on the right. We can draw lines between them when one influences the other. I see a lot of lines from the rules to the fiction, but not many from the fiction to the rules. (There's also a third thing, the players, who are both inside and outside of the other two.)

Some places where the rules affect the fiction:
The rules define number of success or failures needed
The rules define range, attacks, etc. to make backing away important
The rules define what skills apply

There isn't a whole lot of places where the fiction affects the rules:
Backing away isn't threatening, so the sorcerer has to do something else

There's nothing wrong with that flow, I just see that as rules before fiction. The players' fictional choices are having very little effect on the rules state of the game, and even then only when filtered through GM prerogative. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there's nothing in the rules that says you can't intimidate while backing up.

 

[Mallus]

No one at my table is an expert on bear psychology....

I'm shocked . I thought by placing the Viking Hat of Dungeon-Mastering upon your head you immediately become a polymath, knowledgeable in all matters animal, vegetable and mineral, including, but not limited to, Gilbert and Sullivan lyrics, much in the manner of a modern Major-General, more than capable of adjudicating, with fairness, accuracy, and suitable entertainment value, whatever actions, however rational, rash, borderline absurd, or wantonly fire-based they might be, your players, bless their febrile little minds, might decide to undertake.

Allow me to ask this: how does one figure out what happens, when players do the crazy things they are want to do, considering the enormous breadth of crackpot situations they find themselves in?

How exactly does one decide if the players plan to combat a large pool of magically animated water is brilliant or fatally flawed? A knowledge of real-world fluid dynamics won't be much help, seeing as real-word fluids are seldom motivated by animosity or a desire to protect a wizard's property rights. No advice from the realms of fiction spring to mind. Angry water is a bit of a corner case. It's hardly iconic, unlike say, fighting a giant, in which the logical choice of counter-armament is the sling.

Personally, I don't mind the skill systems present in 3e and 4e. It's nice to have guidelines for adjudicating of player actions. Some mechanics to fall back on, if you need them.

I agree that a reduction of play to pure mechanics represents a loss, or at the very least, a failure to live up to the potential inherent in role-playing games. But does the mere existence of something like the 4e Skill Challenge system, or 3e skill lists, really serve as a barrier to creative play?

It sure seems like an implementation issue to me. A DM could choose to resolve everything using die rolls. Of course, they could just as easily choose not do that. It's how my friends and I played 3e (and now play 4e).

The newer editions didn't make us less creative. They simply gave us some extra tools with which to run our campaigns.

 

[Kannik]

For example, in a "fiction-first" system, the sorcerer's attempt to intimidate would tend to work against the wizard's and ranger's attempt to soothe. In a "rules-first" system, one ignores the dichotomy.

I disagree here. There is nothing in that says Intimidate has to work to forward the action (or the skill challenge as the case may be). As with in any other system the DM may say, "Sorry, that will not work." There's no ignoring required of any dichotomy in any way.

EDIT: Also, 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.

I don't follow what you're saying here. The players (in both examples) had already chosen to avoid the combat with actions that interacted with the creatures. The DM can chose to let the actions automatically succeed or put in a potential of failure such as skill or attribute checks. Maybe you use magic spells to help, or some of your nifty combat tricks and tactics as well. So you've got interaction and abilities and rolls. The DM says when all that is enough to achieve your aim -- just like a skill challenge. I see no devaluation of choice; the party chose to engage, and the DM adjudicated.

In any D&D game, if the party chooses to close the door and move on elsewhere, the DM has to choose if they can do that or if the monster follows them, or if the party misses a vital clue/item, or if they are all attacked by a grue. DM choice? Absolutely. Can some DM reactions devalue the choice of the PCs by forcing them onto a certain path? Sure. Are the above examples of a rules-first system punishing the players? I say not at all. There is no rule that says "if the party goes left, you must XYZ."

peace,

Kannik

 

[Raven Crowking]

The dichotomy was discussed. No one at my table is an expert on bear psychology, but it was generally agreed that one way one can calm a ranging bear was by establishing dominance over it through a display of power.

No one has to be an expert on "bear" psychology. Establishing dominance through a display of power may intimidate an X, and it may keep the X from attacking you, but that is not the same thing at all as "soothing" or "calming" it!

Intimidate =/= soothe, and those were the words you used. Indeed, one rather precludes the other.

One hardly needs to be an expert in bear psychology...indeed, one need not even know what a bear is...to see the problem here!

Agree with this - I'm not sure it will always be true (especially, if healing surges aren't really at risk in the skill chalenge, that could be a difference from combat) but it may often be true.

Recall, though, that I am not talking absolutes here. A "fiction first" system is predominantly fiction first (i.e., it takes the lead of the fiction whenever possible), whereas a "rules-first" system is only predominantly rules first. Both will run into situations where it is either impossible or undesireable to be completely fiction- or rules-first.

I disagree here. There is nothing in that says Intimidate has to work to forward the action (or the skill challenge as the case may be). As with in any other system the DM may say, "Sorry, that will not work." There's no ignoring required of any dichotomy in any way.

Unless a successful Intimidate counteracts the attempted Soothe, I would say that there is still quite a strong dichotomy present.

But, be aware that I am talking about the example as presented. I am not talking about some other hypothetical example which has not been presented. Nor am I making some claim that pemerton "had to" run the encounter the way that he did. I would, however, make the claim that both the ruleset and its presentation influenced the choices that he made in running it in this way.

And if pemerton, who is a smart, experienced, GM, was influenced in this way, what hope does a newby, wet-behind-the-ears DM have?

I don't follow what you're saying here.

There are two possibilities involved.

In the first case, the DM determines how difficult the encounter is going to be, and that is how difficult the encounter is, regardless of the choices that the players make.

In the second case, the DM determines how the encounter is set up, and the players make decisions that determine how difficult the encounter is. In this set up, some encounters reward combat, while others might reward quick thinking or parlay.

If the DM adjusts the encounter on the fly to present a "skill challenge" (or other such construct) that is intended to match the difficulty of a combat challenge simply because the players decide not to fight, then it is of the first kind.

The reverse (skill challenge to combat) would be if Stephen Hawking challenged the PCs to physics trivia, and when (knowing that the could not beat Stephen in his given field) the players decided to simply kill him, he became an unbeatable physical opponent, too.

When you look at it that way, you can see the problem with making a challenge equal, regardless of how it is faced. I hope. Doing so takes away a meaningful player choice (how should we tackle this problem?) that has been the backbone of the game since it was first played.

And, again, please note that I am not claiming that any game has to be played like this. But I am saying that some games encourage it more than others.

In any D&D game, if the party chooses to close the door and move on elsewhere, the DM has to choose if they can do that or if the monster follows them, or if the party misses a vital clue/item, or if they are all attacked by a grue. DM choice? Absolutely.

I hope you can see the difference between the DM making that choice based upon the logic of the scenario (fiction-first), making that choice to force a particular level of challenge because the mechanics of later encounters require that the PCs level before moving on (rules-first), and making that choice because the scenario is going to play out that way no matter what the players choose (railroad-first).

In the first case, the degree to which the players understand the situation informs their tactics and choices.

In the second case, the degree to which the players understand the rules informs their tactics and choices.

In the third case, find a new DM.

peace,

Kannik

And to you, brother!


RC

 

[Mallus]

Intimidate =/= soothe, and those were the words you used. Indeed, one rather precludes the other.

Maybe they were playing "Good Trainer/Bad Trainer"?

Also, the Dog Whisperer, aka Cesar Milan, frequently advices "discipline first, then affection", so the combination of intimidation followed by soothing might actually work, though, to be fair, I don't believe Cesar every tried to discipline an unruly pooch with a dagger full of lightning.

 

[pemerton]

A question to other GMs - especially those who don't like structured non-combat resolution (whether 4e skill challenges, HeroWars/Quest extended contests, etc): How would you adjudicate an attempt by your party to defeat a water weird by plugging the spring at the bottom of the pool containing it?

 

[pemerton]

Maybe they were playing "Good Trainer/Bad Trainer"?

I really don't think this is a 4e thing. Like Mallus is suggesting, it's a "how much slack do you cut your players' crazy schemes" thing.

But anyway - the notion that one person might intimidate the bear, while the other establishes a rapport with it, doesn't strike me as inherently absurd. It's how police, Maoists and many other experts in socio-psychological manipulation work. Why can't it work for a bear?