The Scop: Improvising Like a Pro

[Obryn]

I found it easiest to improvise in my Call of Cthulhu game.

(1) Stuff will always happen in-game that doesn't make sense.

(2) The players will do my work for me, and make it make sense, if they can.

(3) I can always figure out later how this random stuff I just came up with works into the overarching plot.

(4) Statistics? CoC is hardly a crunchy game.

I didn't do it often, but damn... There were some nights where it was a life-saver.

-O

 

[Beginning of the End]

Just out of curiosity, what makes 4e harder? Is it an issue of rules familiarity or something else altogether?

I'm not the OP, but for me it's because the rules have been dissociated from the game world.

Essentially, my primary POV and goal when playing an RPG is to interact with the game world. The rules are a means to that end (and I like it when the rules are interesting and well-designed), but the goal is that interaction with the game world.

So my natural mental process is to take the input ("I want to do X"), translate that into mechanical terms ("make a skill check at DC Y"), use the rules to adjudicate the result, and then translate that result back into the game world.

This works well in 3rd Edition and previous editions because the rules shared my design ethos: There were a few legacy gamist elements laying around, but 99.9% of the system was designed to model the reality of the game world.

Trying to use 4th Edition, on the other hand, feels like I'm pouring sand into my mental cogworks. Because the rules of 4th Edition weren't designed that way -- in fact there's frequently (if not usually) no meaningful connection between the mechanics and the game world at all.

This makes using the system unpleasant for me to use under almost any circumstances, but it makes improvisation under the system particularly difficult. The key aspect of any improv is the smooth flow from impulse to thought to action. For me, 4th Edition distrupts that flow.

Now, on the other hand, if your primary goal with D&D is to have all the numbers come out "right" and for all the game mechanics to be "balanced", then I'd imagine that 4th Edition simplifies things considerably.

I remember discussing a similar issue with a 4th Edition afficionado awhile back. His position was that 3rd Edition needlessly complicates things: You want the slippery floor of the room to be DC 15 because a DC 15 check will be challenging to the players given their current skill level. So you go to the rulebook and you figure out what cause a DC 15 slipperiness and that's what you put on the floor. Wouldn't it be much easier to just say that the floor requires a DC 15 check to cross and then describe that however you want to?

From his perspective, that made sense. 3rd Edition requires this multiple step process, whereas 4th Edition just says "level Y = DC X".

From my perspective, that looked like lunacy. All I do is say "the floor is icy" or "the floor is wet" or "the floor is uneven". Then, if somebody wants to cross it, I determine the DC for that. It's a two step process: "condition Y = DC X"

 

[Beginning of the End]

Improvising also means, for example, that the environment reacts to the party and does not remain static. The world is more living and more believable that way.

If there's one word I wish I could abolish from the lexicon of every GM it would be "plot".

Don't design plots. Design situations. It's actually easier to prep, easier to run, and more enjoyable to play.

 

[Pbartender]

I'm not the OP, but for me it's because the rules have been dissociated from the game world.

...

So my natural mental process is to take the input ("I want to do X"), translate that into mechanical terms ("make a skill check at DC Y"), use the rules to adjudicate the result, and then translate that result back into the game world.

...

Now, on the other hand, if your primary goal with D&D is to have all the numbers come out "right" and for all the game mechanics to be "balanced", then I'd imagine that 4th Edition simplifies things considerably.

It's not always about balance, though. Especially when it comes to improvization, a lot of it is simply how each of our personal thought processes work... how do your personal mental cogworks grind? And like you said, having the wrong set of rules can be like throwing sand in the works.

My preference for 4E at the moment, stems from the way I view the rules of games... For me, if there a is rule or a statistic already in place, I'd rather use it than making something up. If I know the rule, it doesn't really present a problem. But if the rule is obscure or I am unfamiliar with it, I often feel compelled to look it up so I can get it right, often wasting minutes at the table to find the appropriate reference -- usually at a dramatically important time when the action should have kept moving.

3E had very detailed rules, with DCs and modifers for most situations. If I was prepared ahead of time, there was no problem. If an unexpected situation came up, the game ground to a halt. The only other way to deal with it was to make something up... While 3E was consistant enough to come up with something reasonable, it was inconsistant enough with the "mini-games", that "let's use this, and we'll look up the real rule later" became a constant annoyance.

Because 4E rules are a little bit looser about non-combat hazards, I feel more free to make something up on the spot without having to look up a specific rule.

I remember discussing a similar issue with a 4th Edition afficionado awhile back. His position was that 3rd Edition needlessly complicates things: You want the slippery floor of the room to be DC 15 because a DC 15 check will be challenging to the players given their current skill level. So you go to the rulebook and you figure out what cause a DC 15 slipperiness and that's what you put on the floor. Wouldn't it be much easier to just say that the floor requires a DC 15 check to cross and then describe that however you want to?

And this is pretty close to how I look at it, as well... Though I fully understand not everyone thinks the same way.

From his perspective, that made sense. 3rd Edition requires this multiple step process, whereas 4th Edition just says "level Y = DC X".

From my perspective, that looked like lunacy. All I do is say "the floor is icy" or "the floor is wet" or "the floor is uneven". Then, if somebody wants to cross it, I determine the DC for that. It's a two step process: "condition Y = DC X"

Here's how I look at it...

1. Decide on a vague description (icy cobblestones, early morning wet grass, a muddy roadway, a light oil slick, an old moss-covered log, etc...)
2. Determine condition based on description ("the floor is slippery").
3. Condition informs consequence ("you fall prone and take light damage").
4. Character level determines difficulty ("DC 1/2 level + 10 is moderate for an untrained Acrobatics checks, and relatively easy for a trained check").
5. Condition, consequence, difficulty, and local environment determine detailed description ("A cobblestone alley runs down a set of stairs between two buildings and is lightly glazed with ice and spray from the spray of the waves beating against the nearby pier").

With a DM's Screen cheat sheet in front of me, I can roll through that process in the time it takes me to describe the alley and answer questions from the players.

So, for determining difficulty, yes, 4E is often "level Y = DC X", but you also have to take into consideration "condition Y = effect X".

From my perspective, it was the difference between 3E as "condition Y = DC X" and 4E as "condition W of level X = effect Y at DC Z". Regardless of number of steps, for me, it's more intuitive to run through in my head, and gives me more options for what I throw at my players at any given level.

 

[Mallus]

This works well in 3rd Edition and previous editions because the rules shared my design ethos: There were a few legacy gamist elements laying around, but 99.9% of the system was designed to model the reality of the game world.

I've always though the 3e rules --much like the 1e, 2e, and 4e-- model a world is fundamentally absurd, which is say that it's a world whose "physics" were designed to produce a playable game, not any kind of accurate or comprehensive simulation.

-- in fact there's frequently (if not usually) no meaningful connection between the mechanics and the game world at all.

The meaningful connection is up to the DM and players to create in how they describe the scene and their actions; it's created through joint narration.

 

[Psion]

Regarding the OP and referenced articles:

The old advice is good advice. Some bits of this, like:

Fourthly, know your plot. To be able to improvise, you'll need to know where you are heading, at least more or less.

Sounds like the same exact sort of thing that was pointed out in an old Dragon article (issue 175, titled "Inventing the Instant Adventure), subtitled "if you are going to wing it, make a flight plan".

At any rate, regarding the "ease of winging it in 3e", my thoughts reflect those of KM and BotE. I find that the structure is easy to plug in to come up with challenges, and that creature entries have the right depth for me to both draw ideas from and add my own spin.

I remember discussing a similar issue with a 4th Edition afficionado awhile back. His position was that 3rd Edition needlessly complicates things: You want the slippery floor of the room to be DC 15 because a DC 15 check will be challenging to the players given their current skill level. So you go to the rulebook and you figure out what cause a DC 15 slipperiness and that's what you put on the floor. Wouldn't it be much easier to just say that the floor requires a DC 15 check to cross and then describe that however you want to?

From his perspective, that made sense. 3rd Edition requires this multiple step process, whereas 4th Edition just says "level Y = DC X".

Yep. That's a mental block I just don't encounter. I really don't get why so many people got so hung up on looking up just the right DC in 3e. Once you sort of understand the scale, it's not that difficult to wing DCs. But the fact that the DCs are there as a reference gives me a feel how difficult something should be.

I'd rather have a reference and get it off than make everything relative.

 

[Obryn]

Now, on the other hand, if your primary goal with D&D is to have all the numbers come out "right" and for all the game mechanics to be "balanced", then I'd imagine that 4th Edition simplifies things considerably.

You know, it's funny, but this is exactly the complaint I've heard about CRs and ELs on other forae.

I consider 4e's task levels and monster levels about the same as 3e's CRs. Both are just tools to establish a level of difficulty for a given task, and a DM can freely ignore them at will. 3e's CR/EL, and 4e's Encounter Guidelines, aren't rules in the same sense that, say, Opportunity Attacks are. They're just math, done in advance, and thrown onto a table.

I remember discussing a similar issue with a 4th Edition afficionado awhile back. His position was that 3rd Edition needlessly complicates things: You want the slippery floor of the room to be DC 15 because a DC 15 check will be challenging to the players given their current skill level. So you go to the rulebook and you figure out what cause a DC 15 slipperiness and that's what you put on the floor. Wouldn't it be much easier to just say that the floor requires a DC 15 check to cross and then describe that however you want to?

From his perspective, that made sense. 3rd Edition requires this multiple step process, whereas 4th Edition just says "level Y = DC X".

From my perspective, that looked like lunacy. All I do is say "the floor is icy" or "the floor is wet" or "the floor is uneven". Then, if somebody wants to cross it, I determine the DC for that. It's a two step process: "condition Y = DC X"

Well, first off, if you check the PHB, the tables are very, very similar to 3e's tables. If you look under the Balance sub-heading of Acrobatics, you'll find set DCs for various tasks, which don't depend on a PC's level at all. "Narrow or Unstable Surface: DC 20"

I'm going to guess, though, that your discussion was about the various DCs listed in the DMG, page 42. Arbitrarily setting DCs based on the PCs' level is certainly one way to read the 4e DC table, but I don't know that it's the best one.

Not all challenges are set for the PCs' level. This should be obvious, just like not all 3e encounters are within 2-3 of the PCs' level. What the DC table helps with, for me, is when I ask, "What level PC could reasonably expect to do this?" So, for your somewhat icy floor, it'd be silly to put an arbitrarily high DC on it for high-level characters.

Now, on the other hand, if your high-level characters are trying to cross a magically-frozen pond in the Winter Court of the Feywild, a high DC is absolutely appropriate. That's a task which high-level characters would do, and the pond is bound to be supernaturally slippery. The DC table helps out a lot here, if you don't want to just wing it.

It's still a two-step process, and you can still wing it. If you aren't comfortable winging it, there's two different tables to help - one in the skill description, and one in the DMG. But neither table should be treated as mandatory.

-O

 

[Hella_Tellah]

I've always though the 3e rules --much like the 1e, 2e, and 4e-- model a world is fundamentally absurd, which is say that it's a world whose "physics" were designed to produce a playable game, not any kind of accurate or comprehensive simulation.

It's not how I run games, but I can see the appeal of simulationism. You can get a kind of emergent behavior that isn't present in other ways of running the game. When you look at the rules as the guidelines by which an imaginary universe function, you can do things like flinging the party's halfling across the room by using Explosive Spell metamagic. It also has a sense of DM/party fairness, in that DMs are playing by the same rules players are, and everyone can use their knowledge of the rules to pull off neat things.

I don't like looking things up all that much, so I don't run games that way. But it's a legitimate way to play the game.

 

[Halivar]

For anyone that can spontaneously generate a 3.x monster stat block in their head: I salute you. You have more brain-power things going on than I will ever have. I also salute the guys who pre-stat every single possible monster/NPC the players could ever meet. That's a level of dedication I'll never have, also.

For me, 4E allows me to say, spontaneously, "Hey! I need to put a desert monster here. Ok, without opening a book, I need hit-points, defenses, attack bonues, and damage rolls." And I can do it. My previous 3.x games I have tried to DM foundered on my inability to act spontaneously in a world where everything has a rule, and I don't necessarily know all of them.

For the first time ever, I can run an entire session without writing down a single stat-block or pre-determined skill challenge. After six months, I'm close to finishing my first complete campaign (after 8 years of abortions), and the ease of improv in 4E is directly responsible for it.

IMHO, YMMV, IYKWIMAITYD, TWSS, etc.

 

[Mallus]

It's not how I run games, but I can see the appeal of simulationism.

Oh, so do I... but think whatever level of simulation exists in a D&D campaign is brought to the table by the participants, it's a product of consent, knowldege and mutual interests rather than something derived from a particular rule set. For example, people play OD&D in a simulationist manner, despite the fact their isn't a whole lot in that rule set to hang a simulated world on.

You can get a kind of emergent behavior that isn't present in other ways of running the game.

Why would emergent behavior be limited to a certain kind of simulationist approach to the rule set?

When you look at the rules as the guidelines by which an imaginary universe function, you can do things like flinging the party's halfling across the room by using Explosive Spell metamagic.

You can also do that when the DM/people playing agree that you can.

It also has a sense of DM/party fairness, in that DMs are playing by the same rules players are, and everyone can use their knowledge of the rules to pull off neat things.

It's a false sense, though, isn't it? A DM can stay perfectly within the framework of a system like 3e and still be terribly unfair to their players be designing challenges that exploit party weaknesses and nullify their strengths.

But it's a legitimate way to play the game.

Sure... I didn't mean to suggest otherwise.