Action resolution (as per April 24 Rule of Three)

[Crazy Jerome]

My feeling is that there are two things missing from what Rule of 3 describes (which is not to say that they are necessarily missing from the new rules):

* guidelines to the GM on how action resolution is to depend on what (in the fiction) the PC is trying to do;

* a wider distribution of stakes for action, so that players have some sort of reason not always to regret missing out on rolling their best stat.

I think 5E would benefit from an attempt to incorporate "Let it Ride" and explicit intent and stakes into its resolution mechanics. Naturally, they would be somewhat different than in Burning Wheel, and other such games, but the need those mechanics address is present in every RPG, whatever the system does to change how those mechanics might work.

Given that D&D is primarily built on task resolution instead of conflict resolution, and generally has a bigger need for the DM to keep secrets, it might also work out that the incorporation is no more than a section of advice and guidelines. But even that would be superior to not addressing the subject at all.

 

[P1NBACK]

We used those, for combat situations, during the middle of a fight or if we walked into a hostile encounter, but never out of combat, since those rules are listed in the "combat" section of the book.

Well, it's sort of wrapped up in the "Encounters, Combat and Initiative" section which includes Avoiding combat and Parleying (before and after combat). Still, it's pretty explicit that those are the rules for parleying and the reactions of creatures encountered and even uses Charisma as a modifier...

The point is, in 1E the DM wasn't just making crap up. They had some rules there to draw on.

 

[Mouseferatu]

However, I'd strongly contend that a good set of rules can help a poor to reasonably good GM and a bad set can harm a poor to reasonably good GM.

Well, yes. I don't believe I said otherwise; I certainly didn't intend to.

What I said is that trying to write rules to mitigate bad DMing or playing--as opposed to educating them--doesn't work, and restricts options. A good set of rules supports good DMing and good playing, absolutely. No argument. But trying to include a rule to curtail every possible abuse is not only futile, but counterproductive.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I think 5E would benefit from an attempt to incorporate "Let it Ride" and explicit intent and stakes into its resolution mechanics. Naturally, they would be somewhat different than in Burning Wheel, and other such games, but the need those mechanics address is present in every RPG, whatever the system does to change how those mechanics might work.

Given that D&D is primarily built on task resolution instead of conflict resolution, and generally has a bigger need for the DM to keep secrets, it might also work out that the incorporation is no more than a section of advice and guidelines. But even that would be superior to not addressing the subject at all.

There is a level of let it ride in that if you have a certain ability score it just works, but yes I agree

 

[pemerton]

I think 5E would benefit from an attempt to incorporate "Let it Ride" and explicit intent and stakes into its resolution mechanics.

<snip>

Given that D&D is primarily built on task resolution instead of conflict resolution, and generally has a bigger need for the DM to keep secrets, it might also work out that the incorporation is no more than a section of advice and guidelines. But even that would be superior to not addressing the subject at all.

One of the Save My Game columns last year suggested using Let It Ride (not under that name, but the same mechanic - ie no re-checks).

Once you incorporate that sort of rule, I think something has to be done about stakes - otherwise it risks becoming just a roadblock to further progress by the PCs, or an excuse for mere GM fiat (in the bad sense of that notion).

The 4e DMG, and even moreso the DMG2, are full of stuff about "failing a skill challenge isn't the end of the adventure" (and maybe similar stuff for combat? I can't remember), but don't actually explain how to make that so.

And I think it's non-trivial. For example, techniques that a game like BW uses to keep paths open includ giving players a degree of narrative control (eg via Wises, vial Relationships, via Circles) and giving them a strong role to play in setting the priorities for a scenario (via Beliefs).

Once these things are stripped away (and that is part and parcel of the "GM secret" aspect of D&D that you refer to) new techniques are going to be needed. And it would be good if they could be more focused, and more workable, than just "Build your world and let the players sandbox their way through it."

Addressing this issue can also address the issue of players feeling more confident to risk failing, and therefore to not always try and push their best scores. And one might hope that addressing this issue would also involve linking the fiction tightly into the adjudication of action resolution, which also might open up a wider space for the players to be comfortable trying stuff.

A simple, maybe half-baked example: if the player is confident that a mug-crushing attempt at intimidation, even if it fails, will open up one sort of alternative path (say, someone who sees the PC humiliate him-/herself and takes pity), and that a silver-tongued attempt at trickery will, even if it fails, open up a different sort of alternative path (say, a member of the guild that the PC pretended to belong to notices the attempt and starts following the PC), then the context for choice becomes richer. The stakes (within the fiction) become more varied. The player has a more complex circumstance for choosing than simply "What is my best stat".

But setting up these sorts of situations, as a GM, requires advice and support. And if the support is not going to come from the players (as at least some of it does in BW), it's going to have to come from somewhere else. And in a way that gives the players confidence that the options are there, even though their character sheets aren't point them to them (as they might in BW or a similar game).

 

[P1NBACK]

I guess my opinion with the "just use your highest stat and describe how you do" is twofold:

1) Cool. We have a mechanic that leads from the fiction. It's requiring you to describe what you do so we know what to roll. I love it. A nice contrast from 4E's lead from the mechanic resolution which can be jarring.

However...

2) Is this just for social? What about other aspects of the game? "Oh, I'm hiking through the wilderness and trying to remain jovial by singing songs and whatnot! That's Charisma for our endurance check right?" Or, "I'm reflecting on that rare tome, Guide to All Things Mechanical, I was reading the other day. So, I'm trying to pick the lock. That's Intelligence right?" Or, "I'm going to smash this room to bits looking for the clue; breaking tables apart, flipping beds, cracking the walls open with my hammer... That's a Strength roll to find the clue right?"

I mean, it seems like you can sort of justify anything. It doesn't feel right. It might be cool in actual play though. I just think there is potential there for things to get muddied up.

And, if we're doing all actions in the game like this, why not extend to combat? "I'm being super watchful of his defensive movements. Wisdom to attack?" Or, "I'm using geometry to line up the perfect angle for firing this bow... Intelligence to attack?"

At that point, we're just sort of ting.

I think there's a better approach for this.

Why not base interaction off of Charisma, but give each class some sort of edge?

Fighters are good at speaking with soldierly types. Thieves are good at backalley whispers and black market trades. Clerics are good with society and priestly. Wizards are good with the studious types and sages.

Trying to make contact with the border fort? Send in the fighter. Want to vie for help from the town council? The Cleric. Want to learn more from the secretive Order of the Mage? Wizard. Want to find some poison or get the lowdown on a shady individual? Send the Thief in.

And, that can all be based on Charisma, with simple mechanics for different situations. And, the Fighter with the higher Charisma still does better than the Fighter with the lower Charisma.

 

[pemerton]

Is this just for social? What about other aspects of the game? "Oh, I'm hiking through the wilderness and trying to remain jovial by singing songs and whatnot! That's Charisma for our endurance check right?" Or, "I'm reflecting on that rare tome, Guide to All Things Mechanical, I was reading the other day. So, I'm trying to pick the lock. That's Intelligence right?" Or, "I'm going to smash this room to bits looking for the clue; breaking tables apart, flipping beds, cracking the walls open with my hammer... That's a Strength roll to find the clue right?"

I mean, it seems like you can sort of justify anything. It doesn't feel right. It might be cool in actual play though. I just think there is potential there for things to get muddied up.

And, if we're doing all actions in the game like this, why not extend to combat? "I'm being super watchful of his defensive movements. Wisdom to attack?" Or, "I'm using geometry to line up the perfect angle for firing this bow... Intelligence to attack?"

I think whether this is cool, or just silly, is going to depend heavily on how the choice of stat, and the description by which it is incorporated, colours not just the making of the check, but its resolution.

For example, if you use your INT to pick the lock (by recalling your reading of the Guide to All Things Mechanical) or to attack (by lining up the perfect angle), how does that change the resolution of, and consequences of, success or failure? If the answer is "It doesn't", then the system is probably not going to work.

One boring way to colour resolution is just to change DCs - I know from experience, for example, that doing mechanical work with little or no manual skills, and only an intellectual grasp of the matter, isn't as effective as having someone do it who is deft and practiced. But this just opens the door to mathematical optimisation once again, which (I thought) is something that we're trying to downplay in favour of engagement with the fiction.

Does lining up a shot using geometric principles take more time? Work better with a crossbow than a bow (because you don't need to use your own strength to hold a crossbow taut)? Make it impossible to hit a moving target (because the geometry keeps changing, and tracking a moving target requires hand-eye co-ordination which is DEX, not INT)?

Why not base interaction off of Charisma, but give each class some sort of edge?

Fighters are good at speaking with soldierly types. Thieves are good at backalley whispers and black market trades. Clerics are good with society and priestly. Wizards are good with the studious types and sages.

Trying to make contact with the border fort? Send in the fighter. Want to vie for help from the town council? The Cleric. Want to learn more from the secretive Order of the Mage? Wizard. Want to find some poison or get the lowdown on a shady individual? Send the Thief in.

And, that can all be based on Charisma, with simple mechanics for different situations. And, the Fighter with the higher Charisma still does better than the Fighter with the lower Charisma.

This is roughly how I try to do it in 4e, but the "edge" tends to be more fictional than mechanical (because of how the DC setting rules work) - for example, if you want the soldiers in the border fort to come on board with your madcap scheme, you need to send the fighter and not the sorcerer to talk to them, because only the fighter understands fighter-y things and can impress the soldiers with his/her grasp of them.

Or maybe its lower DC Diplomacy for the fighter, higher DC Bluff for the sorcerer - and the consequences of failure are therefore signficantly different: if the fighter fails then the soldiers are sceptical that it can be done; if the sorcerer fails then the soldiers are angry at being made fools of.

Anyway, there are certainly multiple viable paths, I think. But the designers will have to put more effort than any previous edition of D&D has done into explaining how the mechanics are meant to be used, and exactly how the processes of framing the circumstances of the check, permitting the check and then resolving its consequences are all to be undertaken.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The 4e DMG, and even moreso the DMG2, are full of stuff about "failing a skill challenge isn't the end of the adventure" (and maybe similar stuff for combat? I can't remember), but don't actually explain how to make that so.

And I think it's non-trivial. For example, techniques that a game like BW uses to keep paths open includ giving players a degree of narrative control (eg via Wises, vial Relationships, via Circles) and giving them a strong role to play in setting the priorities for a scenario (via Beliefs).

Once these things are stripped away (and that is part and parcel of the "GM secret" aspect of D&D that you refer to) new techniques are going to be needed. And it would be good if they could be more focused, and more workable, than just "Build your world and let the players sandbox their way through it."

I think it is non-trivial to use Let it Ride and stakes/intent rigorously in 4E. The mechanics aren't there to support it, even if the advice was better.

However, I have found it fairly easy to use in certain circumstances, as a kind of pseudo conflict resolution mechanic, with explicit stakes called out. It helps that the players in our group are already used to a heavy character/player separation. For example, the players often handle monsters and NPCs, and are "in the know" on things that their characters don't know. We routinely have so many "secrets" that it doesn't hurt if several of them are outed in order to enhance the roleplay sizzle now.

Ultimately, I think stakes/intent is the essential metagame component, the polar opposite from deep immersion. If you like that sort of metagaming, might as well go for the full enchilada. If you don't, stakes are the last thing you would consider doing. We like it--so no big deal incorporating it on demand.

So sometimes we will bypass the normal rules and go for mechanical resolution of a scene via negotiated party options. It might be a skill challenge. It might be a skill challenge plus some ad hoc stuff (e.g. ability checks, page 42 checks, skill checks outside the skill challenge as "linked tests", etc.) Basically, we say what the party wants to do, define what will need to happen, agree what mechanics are used, and agree on consequences. Then the party makes their final plan, divides the responsibilities up, and the dice hit the table all at once.

There's a certain charm to the traditional "things started going bad, and then we tried to fix it, and it got worse," series of rolls. But there is also some fun in, "we had a plan, we all went and did our thing, and when it went bad, it really went south in a hurry!" And of course when things go well, the second way is a very fast way to resolve the scene, without the plans making it anti-climatic.

 

[Libramarian]

2) Is this just for social? What about other aspects of the game? "Oh, I'm hiking through the wilderness and trying to remain jovial by singing songs and whatnot! That's Charisma for our endurance check right?" Or, "I'm reflecting on that rare tome, Guide to All Things Mechanical, I was reading the other day. So, I'm trying to pick the lock. That's Intelligence right?" Or, "I'm going to smash this room to bits looking for the clue; breaking tables apart, flipping beds, cracking the walls open with my hammer... That's a Strength roll to find the clue right?"

I mean, it seems like you can sort of justify anything. It doesn't feel right. It might be cool in actual play though. I just think there is potential there for things to get muddied up.

And, if we're doing all actions in the game like this, why not extend to combat? "I'm being super watchful of his defensive movements. Wisdom to attack?" Or, "I'm using geometry to line up the perfect angle for firing this bow... Intelligence to attack?"

At that point, we're just sort of ting.

I'm thinking the same thing.

I don't mind occasionally using a Str or Wis or Int check during a social situation, but the main stat used should always be Charisma.

But then, I prefer sandbox adventures.

So, if everybody in the party rolls low Cha I'm not thinking "oh no! I'd better allow them to use Str during the talky scenes to save my overall plot."

I'm thinking "Cool! I want to see how this turns out when they won't be able to get any help from NPCs."

Being able to use any stat for anything is too wishy-washy to push players into really thinking out of the box.

 

[Libramarian]

I think a middle ground would be to allow the player to say what they're doing more abstractly like "I want to intimidate him", but the only way that they might get an "auto-success" is if they describe what they're doing concretely: "I'm going to try to break the mug with my bare hands to frighten him" *DM looks at 17 Strength and decides it works automatically*

You only have a chance for auto-success if you describe it, and the worst that can happen is you just fall back to the regular roll, so you're incentivized to describe it (but not so much that you're screwed if you don't feel like doing that for whatever reason).

That's like how I handle searching for hidden doors or traps: if you want you can just say "I spend a turn searching for hidden doors" and roll. But if you describe how and where you're searching more concretely (tapping the wall...does it sound hollow?), I might decide that you automatically find it, no roll necessary.

I like this principle: your character has a base competence if you play them on "auto-pilot", just pressing the buttons on your charsheet. Attentive, descriptive role-players can push their character to perform better than that.