Mearls' L&L on non-combat pillars

[pemerton]

The consequences are not the odds.

Who said they were?

'The parameters of the fiction' , is this for reals?

Yes. It's how action resolution works in (at least) the following RPGs: HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, and 4e skill challenges.

Roughly: the GM narrates a situation; the player explains what his/her PC is doing, and what s/he is hoping to achieve thereby; the GM specifies a check to be made; the check is made, resulting in a success or a failure; the GM narrates the consequence of that check. This narration of consequences is constrained by (i) the action that the PC was undertaking, (ii) the goal that the player was hoping the PC would achieve via that action, and (iii) whether or not the check succeeds.

If the check is the final one for determining overall success/failure of the challenge, then there is an additional constraint: (iv) the GM's narration must be one which closes the scene.

There is room for plenty of mechanical variation within the outline above: Burning Wheel, Maelstrom Storytelling, HeroWars and 1st ed HeroQuest, HeroQuest revised, and 4e skill challenges all have different mechanics, with a range of strengths and weaknesses. But they all follow, more-or-less, the procedure outlined above.

In that procedure, (a) the player's description of what his/her PC is doing has a signficant impact on the outcome, and (b) there is no such thing as "I roll 30, I win, wheeee!". Which is why, given that you are talking about these things which are not part of the procedure, I am asking which mechanics you have in mind in talking about them: the mechanics of some other game that you haven't specified, or the mechanics of some hypothetical game that neither you, nor anyone else as far as I can tell, wants to play?

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yes. It's how action resolution works in (at least) the following RPGs: HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, Burning Wheel, and 4e skill challenges.

Sounds great. Keep enjoying those. I simply have no wish for such mechanics to be a part of D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I simply have no wish for such mechanics to be a part of D&D.

They're part of 4e, which is in turn a part of D&D. And D&Dnext is ostensibly a unification edition. Hence my expressed dissapointment, in the OP of this thread, that they don't seem to be offering as much as 4e does in the non-combat domain of play.

 

[TwoSix]

They're part of 4e, which is in turn a part of D&D. And D&Dnext is ostensibly a unification edition. Hence my expressed dissapointment, in the OP of this thread, that they don't seem to be offering as much as 4e does in the non-combat domain of play.

It's amazing how much effort has to be expended to get to the part of the debate that consists of "But that isn't D&D".

 

[ExploderWizard]

They're part of 4e, which is in turn a part of D&D. And D&Dnext is ostensibly a unification edition. Hence my expressed dissapointment, in the OP of this thread, that they don't seem to be offering as much as 4e does in the non-combat domain of play.

Yes its quite obvious with all the fixation on resources, at-will magic, the default XP system, that the game is being primarily fight-centric. This isn't shocking in the least. With hordes of fans online ready to scream bloody murder until combat is balanced on the head of a pin its not surprising that little time is left to devote to other parts of the game.

 

[Balesir]

Maybe. Depends on planning and circumstances. If, in addition to being "cool" and "awesome", there was something substantial that might actually work then yes.

"Something substantial that might actually work" according to whom? The DM? Are we back to playing "guess how the DM imagines the world to work", again? I got fed up of that game years ago...

 

[TwoSix]

Yes its quite obvious with all the fixation on resources, at-will magic, the default XP system, that the game is being primarily fight-centric. This isn't shocking in the least. With hordes of fans online ready to scream bloody murder until combat is balanced on the head of a pin its not surprising that little time is left to devote to other parts of the game.

Since we just spent the last 4 years finally getting combat right, it would be nice if we could just import that system wholesale into the new system. Let's get to work on using that model to develop more robust non-combat options in a similar vein.

As a module, of course. An hour to haggle with the DM over a plan, 2 minutes to fight can be right in the core, as long as I get my module.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's amazing how much effort has to be expended to get to the part of the debate that consists of "But that isn't D&D".

"Amazing" is one word for it.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Sounds great. Keep enjoying those. I simply have no wish for such mechanics to be a part of D&D.

Fine. Then don't use them. It's not as if their presence is going to spoil your fun if they are a DM tool that the DM never uses.

Yes its quite obvious with all the fixation on resources, at-will magic, the default XP system, that the game is being primarily fight-centric. This isn't shocking in the least. With hordes of fans online ready to scream bloody murder until combat is balanced on the head of a pin its not surprising that little time is left to devote to other parts of the game.

And yet you have no wish for scene resolution mechanics. Take those out and what's left? A whole list of spot check values for skill rolls, and some spells?

Tackling combat we can agree on quite a lot. Like how many hit points a kobold should have (minus ten)* and what we're supposed to be doing (putting axe or sword to face).

Tackling non-combat (and chunking very broadly - not all people in each group want what I'm indicating)

The OSR crowd wants Rulings. And not Rules.
The 4e crowd wants meta-Structures to support rulings. And no "I win" spells.
The Simulationist crowd wants Rules and not Rulings.
The anti-Narrativist crowd want no meta-structures and generally want Rules.
The Combat as War crowd want "I win" spells and strictly simulationist pacing.

I could go on...

They are starting with combat because it is the easy part. Because people are willing to scream bloody murder if there is even e.g. a hint of skill challenges as a DM tool (IIRC ForeverSlayer has outright said he doesn't even want it as an optional module).

Since we just spent the last 4 years finally getting combat right, it would be nice if we could just import that system wholesale into the new system.

Who says we did get it right? 4e combat is good. But it's not the only form of good. It takes too long - and doesn't give anything to certain types of player. Multiattacks and charge-cheese are both overpowered. And most damningly, for people who aren't tactical players, seeing the wood for the trees - or the combat for the combat actions - becomes a challenge.

* With thanks to Dungeon Bastard

 

[ExploderWizard]

"Something substantial that might actually work" according to whom? The DM? Are we back to playing "guess how the DM imagines the world to work", again? I got fed up of that game years ago...

According to the situation, the setting, common sense, the DM, and ultimately, group consensus.

A DM who makes arbitrary rulings without regard for these elements will not have a group for very long.

I will take a gameworld that works consistently via the rules and sensible rulings over rules that work consistently even if they produce the most absurd of situations any time.