The "real" reason the game has changed.

[Bluenose]

Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?

At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?

I'm not Ariosto, but I'd never narrate an outcome for an event where I was going to roll a dice to see what happens until after I'd rolled the dice. Announce what your attempting, roll the dice to see if it works, and then narrate the outcome; anything else seems counter-intuitive to me, though I know some people get good results from it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

If it's Ok to respond to your reply to Hussar

Of course it is.

- I agree with this.

Then that "Of course it is" goes double!

I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.

I have no opinion on this. "Obnoxiously" is, of course, subjective, so it should not be surprising if opinions differ, depending upon what one is looking for.

I don't like the system. I like some of the ideas, but not the execution. If 4e had been OGL, I would probably like someone else's reimagining of the execution, however.

Heh, couldn't resist the snark either huh RC?

You are confusing me here. What snark?

But, on your point, you're basically agreeing with me here.

Yes, I am. Or, at least, agreeing with the previous post I responded to. Why do you think that's snarky?

The mechanics are dictating the narrative. If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.

That doesn't follow though.

There is a degree to which the mechanics dictate the narrative, and a degree to which player choices dictate the narrative. The mechanics are intended to behave in a manner consistent with the fictional reality, and are intended to be ignored when they fail to do this.

That is, AFAICT, a different design philosophy than 4e's.

OTOH, on the idea of the mechanics constraining character choices, well, that is true for all rpgs AFAICT. When you suggest that it is true, you are (IMHO) objectively correct. In 1e, depending upon the character ability generation method used, the dice might even dictate what races and classes are available to you!

Now, if you want to argue that mechanics in general place restraints on narrative, I'm right behind that.

As am I.

As I said to Ariosto, it is virtually impossible for a player to narrate a mechanically determined event before that event is resolved.

A DM cannot either really. Not without fudging the dice. If the DM narrates that the bad guy jumps over the wall, but then fails his jump check, something's gonna get retconned. In any mechanically determined event, the narrative has to come after the resolution.

Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction? Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?

I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.

This is different than rolling the dice, and then narrating what was attempted and the result.

Note, please, that the value of the difference is subjective. However, the difference is not.


RC

 

[BryonD]

How is this different from skills in 3e? Until your roll the dice, you have no idea how far you jumped, how far you climbed or how persuasive you were.

It is funny to me that this tangent has taken over.

The logistics of rolling the dice to determine success of an action in relation to describing the action (or perhaps intended action) is equal across editions.

But that is quite a different point than my issue. In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following. It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.

Over and over 4E fans praise this aspect of 4E. So obviously it is a good thing for the target audience. I'm not calling it bad. I am calling it a distinction. The games I prefer do not expect the narrative to look to the mechanics for guidance.

The 4E approach "is bad for my taste." But he important point is it is different.

The whole point of resolving before or after the die result is known is a completely unrelated issue.

 

[ExploderWizard]

At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?

The mechanics are dictating the narrative. If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.

Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction? Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?

Stop being obsessed with narrating stuff and just play the game might work. Just a suggestion.

 

[Hussar]

My answer would be Never, But. But because the game is neither about narrating a story nor has any resolution mechanics. The response by the DM is the new configuration of the puzzle, the die rolls are expressions of distributive patterns, D&D traditionally using just the linear and the Bayesian bell curve.

However, the player is still free to interpret results in any way they see fit. Think of this as a form of narrating. When solving a rubik's cube you can simply choose to see all sides as the same color. Moving the puzzle is irrelevant.

In the same way you do not need me to convey a message to you, your perception of it is a chosen story you create. IOW, you only ever perceive what you want to perceive. That's always total narrative power in the mind of every person.

This is either very deep or utter tosh, and I'm not sure which.

If you choose to percieve a message in any way other than what the originator intended, then you will have a failure to communicate. You can self delude yourself that every side of the Rubics cube is the same color, but, it's still not going to actually solve the puzzle.

Then again, you're operating from a definition of role playing game that I just can't quite grok to be honest. It's so reductionist that I find it very difficult to understand how you can call it role playing anymore.

But that is quite a different point than my issue. In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following. It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. The primary difference that I see between 3e and 4e in this case is that in 4e, the mechanics don't dictate a specific interpretation of how the event was resolved. Going back to the spoon discussion, a reasonable reading of the 3e Open Locks skill means that if I try to use that skill, I'm pulling out a tool and inserting it somehow into the lock and trying to trip the tumblers.

4e doesn't really care. It just says you use this skill to open locks. The how is left entirely to the player. That's what it means when mechanics are divorced from narrative. Come and Get It says that X happens. How it happens is entirely up to the player.

WOTC's new Fortune Cards are a great example here. There's no flavour text whatsoever on the cards. None. Play the card, get a mechanical bonus. It's up to the player to narrate how that is happening. 3e would generally take a different approach and have flavour text that would be broadly applicable.

Again, there's strengths and weaknesses to both approaches.

To me, the difference is in the source of the narration. In 3e, the mechanics largely dictate the narration - use X skill, use X ability, and Y happens and Y is very often specifically defined by the rules. A 3e bard can fascinate certain creatures using his perform skill and that is pre-determined at character generation. If you take Perform (Lute), then every one of your bardic abilities must use the lute (or at least the ones that require perform checks).

4e relies on the player to make narration that is acceptable to that table and largely doesn't dictate those kinds of limitations. A character could get a second wind by shaking off his wounds, he could snatch a vulture out of the air with his teeth and drink its blood. Whatever works at the table.

I believe that the DM or player narrates what is attempted, determines what needs to be rolled (if anything), rolls the dice, and then narrates the result.

But, break that down step by step. The player announces that he wants to jump over the pit, as an example. What has happened in game at that point? Has the character moved? Has the character actually taken any action?

I don't think so actually. The character hasn't done anything. In D&D, at least, until such time as that action is resolved, you cannot actually narrate anything.

One way to bring this about would be a system in which the player/GM has resources to spend that ensure the mechical result matches the pre-declared narration. The Dying Earth has rerolls, but they're not unlimited and rerolls can still go wrong - so it's out. HeroQuest has Hero Points which can be spent to "bump" a result - if a player has enough Hero Points in the bank then s/he can guarantee a result - it becomes a question then not of "whether" but "how much does it cost

Sufficiently Advanced actually contains this mechanics. You can spend a point (and the name of which eludes me at the moment) and then narrate the successful resolution of any action. It might cost you down the road with penalties, but, for this specific event, you can choose to narrate it any way you see fit.

But, that's the point, mechanical resolution has been determined - spending the point grants you that ability.

3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars has a similar mechanic where you can create a flashback scene that explains how you either win the current event or lose the current event on your own terms. If you choose to win, then fine, you win. If you choose to lose, you remove yourself from that event in any way you see fit, so long as it actually counts as a loss - you could choose to be captured by the enemy for example, instead of being eaten by them.

But, again, the event has been resolved. You either have won or lost by spending the appropriate resource.

Until such time as a mechanically determined event is resolved in some manner, it cannot be narrated.

Note, for events that are not mechanically determined, you can narrate them any way you want, so long as the table is happy. If I narrate that my character tap dances up to the orc, instead of walking or whatever, if the table is groovy with that, then no worries. The mechanics couldn't care less since movement in combat is not (usually anyway) a mechanically determined event.

 

[Hussar]

Stop being obsessed with narrating stuff and just play the game might work. Just a suggestion.

Are you suggesting that I play D&D like it's an elaborate bingo game? Just call out the numbers and don't bother with anything else? Heathen. That's precisely what people apparently are complaining about - that in order to play the game, we must be able to narrate freely.

Granted, I totally agree with you and narrate sometimes and other times don't bother.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, break that down step by step. The player announces that he wants to jump over the pit, as an example. What has happened in game at that point? Has the character moved? Has the character actually taken any action?

I don't think so actually. The character hasn't done anything. In D&D, at least, until such time as that action is resolved, you cannot actually narrate anything.

PLAYER: I'd like Bob the Barbarian to jump the pit.

(At this point, Bob the Barbarian has done nothing.)

GM: Remember, the pit is 20 feet across. Are you sure you want Bob to jump?

PLAYER: Yes. Bob jumps.

(At this point, Bob jumps. The outcome of Bob jumping is not yet known. Note that the player can narrate what is known, and is within his control, i.e., "Bob jumps", prior to knowing the outcome.)

GM: Roll an Acrobatics check.

(This GM is using RCFG resolution mechanics . He could just as easily call for a Jump check, 3d6 or 4d6 trying to roll less than Dex, or whatever.)

PLAYER: (Makes roll.)

GM: (Compares roll result to what is needed, in this case a DC, but it could be some other resolution method.) Bob leaps, but not far enough. He falls into the 20-foot deep pit, taking (rolls 3d6) 12 points of damage.

(At this point the action is resolved.)

EDIT: Note also that, barring special circumstances, the player could easily examine the rules given, and know that his roll failed to clear the pit. Assuming he also knew the depth, he could have narrated the failure as well. Ex: "Dang! I missed the roll. I guess Bob falls 20 feet, taking 3d6 damage?" The GM nods, and the player rolls. "12 points." Now, exactly how damaging this is to the character is unknown until the character takes stock of his injuries (which, in RCFG, is called "Shaking it Off"), but in comparison to his total hit points, and his hit points remaining, both the GM and the player know what condition the Barbarian is in, and can describe it accordingly.

So....The action begins when the player states that the PC is doing something (jumping a pit, swinging a sword, grabbing a dog by the scruff of its neck) and is resolved when every random factor/die roll is accounted for. The actual "action" spans the period between declaration and resolution.

NEW EDIT: Another way to look at this is that anything in the present tense or past tense can be narrated. The future, however, is opaque.

RC

 

[Dausuul]

]But that is quite a different point than my issue. In 4E the mechanics come first with building a narrative to describe how the mechanic is resolved following. It may be that you need to describe how the mechanic work, or maybe how it failed.

Over and over 4E fans praise this aspect of 4E. So obviously it is a good thing for the target audience. I'm not calling it bad. I am calling it a distinction. The games I prefer do not expect the narrative to look to the mechanics for guidance.

I am not sure this is as much of a selling point for 4E as you think. I'm a 4E player and DM, but "meta-narrative" (where mechanics are taken as absolute and in-game events made up on the fly to fit them, rather than mechanics being a way to resolve the outcomes of in-game events) annoys the hell out of me.

I may have to do a poll on the subject.

 

[LostSoul]

I know that not know everyone likes the terminology that came out of the Forge, but Hussar, you might like to read a bit about IIEE (Intent, Initiation, Execution, Effect). It's a confusing topic, though; I'm not sure I get it.

edit: I should say that, while thinking about RPGs in this way helps me, I'm not trying to present it as an authority. Reading what other people have said about these issues could be interesting, that's all.

[sblock=An example of IIEE]

PLAYER: I'd like Bob the Barbarian to jump the pit.

GM: Remember, the pit is 20 feet across. Are you sure you want Bob to jump?

That's Intent.

PLAYER: Yes. Bob jumps.

Initiation.

GM: Roll an Acrobatics check.

(This GM is using RCFG resolution mechanics . He could just as easily call for a Jump check, 3d6 or 4d6 trying to roll less than Dex, or whatever.)

PLAYER: (Makes roll.)

Execution.

GM: (Compares roll result to what is needed, in this case a DC, but it could be some other resolution method.) Bob leaps, but not far enough. He falls into the 20-foot deep pit, taking (rolls 3d6) 12 points of damage.

(At this point the action is resolved.)

Effect.

You can introduce mechanics at any step. Intent is strange - "Roll on a table to see what your character wants." The pre-4E Confusion spell works at this level. Initiation is typical of Horror checks - can you even begin to take your action, or do you freeze in terror or run screaming? Execution is generally where most RPG mechanics fit in; mechanics on Effect are things like HP and Saving Throws (the spell has been cast (Execution), now do you ignore the Effect?).[/sblock]

 

[howandwhy99]

This is either very deep or utter tosh, and I'm not sure which.

If you choose to perceive a message in any way other than what the originator intended, then you will have a failure to communicate. You can self delude yourself that every side of the Rubics cube is the same color, but, it's still not going to actually solve the puzzle.

Then again, you're operating from a definition of role playing game that I just can't quite grok to be honest. It's so reductionist that I find it very difficult to understand how you can call it role playing anymore.

Perhaps it is easier to understand when one agrees there is no such thing as a difference between reality and fantasy except by personal choice (or social agreement for a less fundamentalist approach).

If you disagree and instead you accept that you can understand a Sender's communicated message by deciphering it, then you accept that there are such things as patterns. And you would be in contradiction to the majority of contemporary communications theory.

Also, delusion is held as a personal identifier one creates for themselves (or is one gained through a social popularity contest). Either way, it has nothing to do with similarity to any underlying reality.

My definition of roleplaying is coming from the roleplay simulation realm. Learn and perform one's roles as best one can, in D&D's case the class played. Fictional character performance is largely irrelevant.