Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5978088" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I've tackled this a few times already in this thread, but will sally forth again . . .</p><p></p><p>When you say "non-specialists sit out and play assistant to the specialists", are you intending that as (i) a statement of what actually (typically, usually) happens, or (ii) a statement of what you think would happen if rational players used the mechanics, or (iii) a prediction based on your own reading of the mechanics, or (iv) something else?</p><p></p><p>Because it doesn't fit my experience, and my players are fairly rational. <em>It's all about the stakes</em>. Set up a situation in which the player of the dwarf fighter is more concerned about his/her PC not looking a tool to the NPCs than about whether or not, in the end, the party get's its way - and, as a GM, adjudicated that situation in a way which plays along with the player - and even a CHA-dump stat PC will start talking.</p><p></p><p>Or, run a 4/3 challenge in which the dwarf can both talk and do other stuff at which s/he might be better - say, physical stuff - and you might find that the player will try talking as well as physical stuff, because s/he has the capacity for a few failures in his/her back pocket.</p><p></p><p>None of what I'm saying is an argument against bounded accuracy - the scaling issues in 4e are well-known and make the maths for everything, including skill checks, harder than it needs to be.</p><p></p><p>But even with bounded accuracy the problem will still be there, because you'll still have dwarf fighters with CHA dump stats. If you want them to talk nevertheless, then (assuming anything like the current approach to stats and skills) you're going to have to frame situations and stakes in the sort of way I'm describing.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The sorts of consequences that I and others are talking about <em>are</em> connected to the action that failed. It's just that they're not causally connected to the task attempted. They're narratively or thematically connected to what it was that the player was hoping the PC would achieve by the check (@Manbearcat uses the phrase "fiction first" to convey this).</p><p></p><p>So a failed Ride check is narrated as a lame horse, or to encountering a yawning canyon - narratively/thematically connected to attempting to escape on horseback.</p><p></p><p>A failed Diplomacy check is narrated as rain which leads the NPC to retreat back under cover before the PC can convey his/her full message - narratively/thematically connected to attempting a successful, genteel negotiation with a dignatory.</p><p></p><p>What counts as the <em>limit</em> of narrative/thematic connection (which, if violated, makes the game seem absurdist) is obviously highly sensitive to shared genre expectations, shared plot expectations, and past experiences at the game table. Everyone seems to agree that "Rocks fall. Everybody dies," is a bit too much. But there's a lot of space to be explored between purely ingame causal processes and "Rocks fall. Everybody dies."</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The second two quotes here are correct, and answer the first. What skill challenges supply is a pacing requirement, which then feeds back in to shape, constrain and guide the narrative requirements.</p><p></p><p>My feeling is that it's artificial in the same way hit points are - unlike in RQ, for example, you can't kill an NPC or monster in D&D, no matter how good your swing and how many your advantages (of position, timing, skill etc) until you cut through their hit points.</p><p></p><p>Duels of Wits in Burning Wheel are the same - no matter how devastating your argument, if you don't deplete the opponent's Body of Argument then the duel is not over.</p><p></p><p>(Of course, a standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, your swing simply <em>wasn't</em> that good. Another standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, then no matter how good your swing, their parry/dodge/etc is just as impressive. Similar narrative devices have to be used with these out-of-combat techniques too.)</p><p></p><p>Now is this a good thing or not? That's for each group to judge. My own experience is that the pacing discipline provided by skill challenges, in conjunction with the emphasis on "genre logic" and narrative/thematic causation rather than ingame process causation, has produced far more interesting scenarios, with players exercising more imagination, situations heading off in more unexpected directions, and the game being more interesting. There have been negotiations with slave traders, dinner parties, interrogations, flying carpet escapes, and (yes, [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]) reforgings of arteracts which I am very confident would not have happened within a process simulation framework (and I say this based on experience of GMing Rolemaster, a skill-rich process simulation game, for nearly 20 years prior to GMing 4e).</p><p></p><p>I'm happy to provide links to the actual play reports for some of these for those who want them, and haven't already looked at and followed the links on the "Why I like skill challenges" thread.</p><p></p><p>Yes. There's no inherent reason why I couldn't work out, for myself, all the stuff about GMing that I've learned from reading Luke Crane, Paul Czege, Ron Edwards, Robin Laws, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and others on message boards, in rule books, in essays, etc.</p><p></p><p>But somehow I doubt that I was ever going to work all that stuff out myself! In that respect, I'm one of the "most people" that you refer to!</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't admit that at all. In fact I deny it.</p><p></p><p>Read the example of a Skill Challenge in the Essentials Rules Compendium and DM's book (it's the same example). <em>It depends upon adjudication via narrative/thematic logic</em>, not ingame causal logic. In particular, on the 3rd failed check the way the GM brings the challenge to a close, which is also a failure, is to have some thugs whom, at an earlier stage, were successfully brushed off by the PCs, turn up again and make trouble. But there is nothing about that third failed check which, in ingame causal terms, causes the thugs to turn up (eg it is not a failed attempt to sneak past them). The GM is applying metagame causation of the sort that I, Mancatbear and others are talking about.</p><p></p><p>My complaint has always been that skill challenges (including the examples of play) presuppose these techniques, but <em>nowhere does the rulebook explain them</em>. The reader is left to derive them from the examples of play presented. But, given those published examples of play, plus the more abstract instructional text, plus the overwhelmingly obvious resemblance of skill challenges to systems from other games like HeroWars/Quest, I am in no doubt as to how skill challenges are intended to work, and that they were not conceived of, by the designers, as simply complex skill checks.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5978088, member: 42582"] I've tackled this a few times already in this thread, but will sally forth again . . . When you say "non-specialists sit out and play assistant to the specialists", are you intending that as (i) a statement of what actually (typically, usually) happens, or (ii) a statement of what you think would happen if rational players used the mechanics, or (iii) a prediction based on your own reading of the mechanics, or (iv) something else? Because it doesn't fit my experience, and my players are fairly rational. [I]It's all about the stakes[/I]. Set up a situation in which the player of the dwarf fighter is more concerned about his/her PC not looking a tool to the NPCs than about whether or not, in the end, the party get's its way - and, as a GM, adjudicated that situation in a way which plays along with the player - and even a CHA-dump stat PC will start talking. Or, run a 4/3 challenge in which the dwarf can both talk and do other stuff at which s/he might be better - say, physical stuff - and you might find that the player will try talking as well as physical stuff, because s/he has the capacity for a few failures in his/her back pocket. None of what I'm saying is an argument against bounded accuracy - the scaling issues in 4e are well-known and make the maths for everything, including skill checks, harder than it needs to be. But even with bounded accuracy the problem will still be there, because you'll still have dwarf fighters with CHA dump stats. If you want them to talk nevertheless, then (assuming anything like the current approach to stats and skills) you're going to have to frame situations and stakes in the sort of way I'm describing. The sorts of consequences that I and others are talking about [I]are[/I] connected to the action that failed. It's just that they're not causally connected to the task attempted. They're narratively or thematically connected to what it was that the player was hoping the PC would achieve by the check (@Manbearcat uses the phrase "fiction first" to convey this). So a failed Ride check is narrated as a lame horse, or to encountering a yawning canyon - narratively/thematically connected to attempting to escape on horseback. A failed Diplomacy check is narrated as rain which leads the NPC to retreat back under cover before the PC can convey his/her full message - narratively/thematically connected to attempting a successful, genteel negotiation with a dignatory. What counts as the [I]limit[/I] of narrative/thematic connection (which, if violated, makes the game seem absurdist) is obviously highly sensitive to shared genre expectations, shared plot expectations, and past experiences at the game table. Everyone seems to agree that "Rocks fall. Everybody dies," is a bit too much. But there's a lot of space to be explored between purely ingame causal processes and "Rocks fall. Everybody dies." The second two quotes here are correct, and answer the first. What skill challenges supply is a pacing requirement, which then feeds back in to shape, constrain and guide the narrative requirements. My feeling is that it's artificial in the same way hit points are - unlike in RQ, for example, you can't kill an NPC or monster in D&D, no matter how good your swing and how many your advantages (of position, timing, skill etc) until you cut through their hit points. Duels of Wits in Burning Wheel are the same - no matter how devastating your argument, if you don't deplete the opponent's Body of Argument then the duel is not over. (Of course, a standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, your swing simply [I]wasn't[/I] that good. Another standard answer is - until you knock off the last hit point, then no matter how good your swing, their parry/dodge/etc is just as impressive. Similar narrative devices have to be used with these out-of-combat techniques too.) Now is this a good thing or not? That's for each group to judge. My own experience is that the pacing discipline provided by skill challenges, in conjunction with the emphasis on "genre logic" and narrative/thematic causation rather than ingame process causation, has produced far more interesting scenarios, with players exercising more imagination, situations heading off in more unexpected directions, and the game being more interesting. There have been negotiations with slave traders, dinner parties, interrogations, flying carpet escapes, and (yes, [MENTION=710]Mustrum_Ridcully[/MENTION]) reforgings of arteracts which I am very confident would not have happened within a process simulation framework (and I say this based on experience of GMing Rolemaster, a skill-rich process simulation game, for nearly 20 years prior to GMing 4e). I'm happy to provide links to the actual play reports for some of these for those who want them, and haven't already looked at and followed the links on the "Why I like skill challenges" thread. Yes. There's no inherent reason why I couldn't work out, for myself, all the stuff about GMing that I've learned from reading Luke Crane, Paul Czege, Ron Edwards, Robin Laws, [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and others on message boards, in rule books, in essays, etc. But somehow I doubt that I was ever going to work all that stuff out myself! In that respect, I'm one of the "most people" that you refer to! I don't admit that at all. In fact I deny it. Read the example of a Skill Challenge in the Essentials Rules Compendium and DM's book (it's the same example). [I]It depends upon adjudication via narrative/thematic logic[/I], not ingame causal logic. In particular, on the 3rd failed check the way the GM brings the challenge to a close, which is also a failure, is to have some thugs whom, at an earlier stage, were successfully brushed off by the PCs, turn up again and make trouble. But there is nothing about that third failed check which, in ingame causal terms, causes the thugs to turn up (eg it is not a failed attempt to sneak past them). The GM is applying metagame causation of the sort that I, Mancatbear and others are talking about. My complaint has always been that skill challenges (including the examples of play) presuppose these techniques, but [I]nowhere does the rulebook explain them[/I]. The reader is left to derive them from the examples of play presented. But, given those published examples of play, plus the more abstract instructional text, plus the overwhelmingly obvious resemblance of skill challenges to systems from other games like HeroWars/Quest, I am in no doubt as to how skill challenges are intended to work, and that they were not conceived of, by the designers, as simply complex skill checks. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top