Is the Burning Wheel "how to play" advice useful for D&D?

[Crazy Jerome]

"Procedural programming won out"? We are so not on the same page.

 

[Manbearcat]

I suppose the takeaway for D&D discussions is that this kind of thing is possible in FATE because physical, social, mental, etc. conflicts all follow the same mechanics. (Unless you modify them for a particular kind of conflict for your game.)

Thanks for the link and very good post.

This is pretty much what I was thinking of above. If D&D had gone the route of a "generic" all encompassing conflict resolution system, a la FATE or MHRP, we may have had, at least slightly, a different culture and a greater variance in players' approaches to adversity/opposition. The same goes for character progression rewards. Consider the implications of "Gold pieces as XP" rather than monster slaying.

I'm working on hacking a D&D version of MHRP and I'm going to use it in the stead of my standard, yearly 1e game when my old buddies and I get together for a one-off. My hypothesis is that their standard, system oriented builds and strategic routines for dealing with adversity/opposition will likely experience some level of shift.

I also wonder if you couldn't have an actual tactical interface and PC build resources centered around a "social combat" mini-game. You could have attacks and defenses off of some collection of "Bluff", "Logic", "Charm", "Intimidate", "Double-Talk/Confuse/Fluster", "Wit", "Stall", "Empathic Read", "Obscure Reference", "Comprehension", "Cool/Poise", "Presence". You could have an action economy of "Standard Action", "Augment", "Triggered Immediate Actions" (which could be defense or offense; rejoinders, comprehension effects, stall tactics or witty repartee). You could either go with a mental/social condition track or a social resource to ablate. You could go with a dice pool approach with each actions' results contributing to/modifying an ultimate resolution pool which is rolled at some pre-determined point and the conclusion of the social contest is rendered via that pool's results.

 

[pemerton]

There's actually an interesting discussion on the FATE Yahoo group right now about the utility of social skills in forcing an end to a (physical) conflict and examples in cinema and fiction.

This is an interesting issue.

Both BW and HeroQuest revised have special provisos in their conflict resolution rules to insist that, once steel is drawn and being swung, words on their own can't defend. In BW, it is put along the following lines: "I plead for mercy" is not at odds with "I chop his head off", and so there being no contest the chopping is resolved with no need to roll and the pleader is decapitated.

In BW it might also depend on the resolution system being used. In a simple versus test resolution is simultaneous, which means the pleading takes place as the head is cut off.

But in Fight! (BW's complex melee resolution system), actions are sequenced, and so you could - for example - use Intimidate before they swing, hoping to force a Steel (= morale) check before they get a chance to try and hit you.

The rules aren't entirely clear how Intimidate vs swordswing should be resolved in a versus test.

I suppose the takeaway for D&D discussions is that this kind of thing is possible in FATE because physical, social, mental, etc. conflicts all follow the same mechanics. (Unless you modify them for a particular kind of conflict for your game.)

At least one published 4e adventure - the Cairn of the Winter King (? - it comes with the MV boxed set) - allows social skill checks to inflict hit point damage in the boss fight.

Something a little similar was in the early 4e adventure Heathen (from the 1st or 2nd 4e Dragon magazine). When I ran a version of Heathen last year I adapated the Winter King approach of having the social skill challenge deliver damage. When the enemy reached 0 hp he (as per the module) tried to kill himself out of shame and repetance, but the PCs used an immediate action to save him.

That's not meant to argue that 4e is as elegant in this respect as a game like HeroWars/Quest, MHRP or FATE. More to point out that there are some workarounds that can be used for those who want to.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

At least one published 4e adventure - the Cairn of the Winter King (? - it comes with the MV boxed set) - allows social skill checks to inflict hit point damage in the boss fight.

I'd forgotten about that! I really liked the concept of using a skill challenge within the boss fight to wear him down. I need to use this more often, maybe even consider making it a regular rule, as long as the player(s) actually put some effort into it and not just throw more dice at the problem.

 

[Ratskinner]

Thanks for the link and very good post.

This is pretty much what I was thinking of above. If D&D had gone the route of a "generic" all encompassing conflict resolution system, a la FATE or MHRP, we may have had, at least slightly, a different culture and a greater variance in players' approaches to adversity/opposition. The same goes for character progression rewards. Consider the implications of "Gold pieces as XP" rather than monster slaying.

Indeed. I suspect such a culture would produce/value a game to more directly reflect the genre sources as well.

I'm working on hacking a D&D version of MHRP and I'm going to use it in the stead of my standard, yearly 1e game when my old buddies and I get together for a one-off. My hypothesis is that their standard, system oriented builds and strategic routines for dealing with adversity/opposition will likely experience some level of shift.

I am so very desperate to try a similar experiment. I hope you will post results!

I also wonder if you couldn't have an actual tactical interface and PC build resources centered around a "social combat" mini-game. You could have attacks and defenses off of some collection of "Bluff", "Logic", "Charm", "Intimidate", "Double-Talk/Confuse/Fluster", "Wit", "Stall", "Empathic Read", "Obscure Reference", "Comprehension", "Cool/Poise", "Presence". You could have an action economy of "Standard Action", "Augment", "Triggered Immediate Actions" (which could be defense or offense; rejoinders, comprehension effects, stall tactics or witty repartee). You could either go with a mental/social condition track or a social resource to ablate. You could go with a dice pool approach with each actions' results contributing to/modifying an ultimate resolution pool which is rolled at some pre-determined point and the conclusion of the social contest is rendered via that pool's results.

This is where, I think, the standard D&D architectures break down a bit, or maybe just reaches a limit. I've speculated before that if 4e had "Combat" and perhaps "Magic" skills, that you could run everything as a Skill Challenge. Just use the flavor text of the powers, if that. That's a very simple game. D&D seems to resist being a simple game, though. D&D loves to have fiddly bits, in particular fixed fiddly bits. Powers, feats, proficiencies, whatever, D&D loves to define what you can do, especially in combat! Whether and how much that also constrains what you can do seems to be subjective.

The problem is that, to some extent, I think non-physical conflicts suffer from that level of definition, and it becomes a constraint. Non-physical conflicts seem to do okay with some broad stroke descriptors or traits, letting the players fill in the details. So what you suggest above sounds okay, but would you really gain a lot vs. a Skill Challenge? ::shrug:: Maybe. I don't think it would give you the ability to use social skills in an otherwise physical conflict. To do that, you've got to have some way to tie directly into things like the HP, movement, etc. and use the same action economy. That is, you'd need to merge the social and physical combat mini-games. To do that would necessitate (I think) changing the conceptualization of things like HP, AC, and injury in ways that most D&D players would find intolerable. Just look at the reaction to 4e's non-magical healing. Maybe there is some clever solution I can't see, but I don't know if most folks even see this as a problem.

 

[Ratskinner]

This is an interesting issue.

Both BW and HeroQuest revised have special provisos in their conflict resolution rules to insist that, once steel is drawn and being swung, words on their own can't defend. In BW, it is put along the following lines: "I plead for mercy" is not at odds with "I chop his head off", and so there being no contest the chopping is resolved with no need to roll and the pleader is decapitated.

In BW it might also depend on the resolution system being used. In a simple versus test resolution is simultaneous, which means the pleading takes place as the head is cut off.

But in Fight! (BW's complex melee resolution system), actions are sequenced, and so you could - for example - use Intimidate before they swing, hoping to force a Steel (= morale) check before they get a chance to try and hit you.

The rules aren't entirely clear how Intimidate vs swordswing should be resolved in a versus test.

Dogs in the Vineyard came up in the FATE discussion, because it views physical combat as a strict escalation of social conflict a very similar to what your saying here. I think, for any game claiming to be narrative, a strong distinction between conflict resolution in and out of combat gets to be a problem.

Which is not to say that distinctions can't exist. FATE, at least, would allow you to have a scenario or setting aspect like "talk is useless when bullets are flying" that could be tagged by any character to make social moves harder in physical combat. You could also have the reverse, "Scandal beats pistol every time!" (pinched from a recent Dr. McNinja strip) However, low-level hard-coded distinctions between resolution systems seem to discourage the sort of mixing that the thread was talking about.

At least one published 4e adventure - the Cairn of the Winter King (? - it comes with the MV boxed set) - allows social skill checks to inflict hit point damage in the boss fight.

Something a little similar was in the early 4e adventure Heathen (from the 1st or 2nd 4e Dragon magazine). When I ran a version of Heathen last year I adapated the Winter King approach of having the social skill challenge deliver damage. When the enemy reached 0 hp he (as per the module) tried to kill himself out of shame and repetance, but the PCs used an immediate action to save him.

That's not meant to argue that 4e is as elegant in this respect as a game like HeroWars/Quest, MHRP or FATE. More to point out that there are some workarounds that can be used for those who want to.

Sure, this is definitely the way to go wrt recent D&D design. However, it is rather limited to the DM-side of things. Would it be "legit" to p42 an Intimidation check in or before combat as dealing damage? I'm not sure. Would any player ever find it advantageous or tempting to do so, rather than use a combat power? I'm even less sure. It might be interesting to go through the 3.5 or 4e skill list and make sure all the interaction skills had combat uses. This is where HP gets into trouble. On the one hand its a pacing mechanic, but on the other it isn't.

 

[Manbearcat]

I am so very desperate to try a similar experiment. I hope you will post results!

It won't happen until early fall but I likely will. I still have to finalize and post my hack. But honestly, that won't be too difficult. There is already a decent enough generic hack for sword and sorcery out there so I'll use some of that and manipulate things as needed to make it sufficiently "D&Dish".

This is where, I think, the standard D&D architectures break down a bit, or maybe just reaches a limit. I've speculated before that if 4e had "Combat" and perhaps "Magic" skills, that you could run everything as a Skill Challenge. Just use the flavor text of the powers, if that. That's a very simple game. D&D seems to resist being a simple game, though. D&D loves to have fiddly bits, in particular fixed fiddly bits. Powers, feats, proficiencies, whatever, D&D loves to define what you can do, especially in combat! Whether and how much that also constrains what you can do seems to be subjective.

The problem is that, to some extent, I think non-physical conflicts suffer from that level of definition, and it becomes a constraint. Non-physical conflicts seem to do okay with some broad stroke descriptors or traits, letting the players fill in the details. So what you suggest above sounds okay, but would you really gain a lot vs. a Skill Challenge? ::shrug:: Maybe. I don't think it would give you the ability to use social skills in an otherwise physical conflict. To do that, you've got to have some way to tie directly into things like the HP, movement, etc. and use the same action economy. That is, you'd need to merge the social and physical combat mini-games. To do that would necessitate (I think) changing the conceptualization of things like HP, AC, and injury in ways that most D&D players would find intolerable. Just look at the reaction to 4e's non-magical healing. Maybe there is some clever solution I can't see, but I don't know if most folks even see this as a problem.

I agree in that I don't think it would add much over skill challenges or generic conflict resolution systems. In fact, I personally prefer those sorts of resolution systems for non-combat conflict resolution (and as a fascilitator for small, primarily color, TotM combats, they are my preference as well) as the open-ended abstraction, rather than hard-corded mechanization, generally opens up the narrative space to more diverse interpretations/renderings.

I was just (and have plenty in the past) thinking on how you could functionally mechanize social interaction/parlays/disputes into tactical mini-games. How would you break out the components of the conflict, the relevant resources deployed by either side and resolve the dispute. Consider the below Simpson's exchange with Homer and Marge where Marge wants Homer to take the trash out but Homer, being Homer, wants to be lazy, eat ice-cream, and watch TV:

Marge - "Homie, please take the trash out." - Uses her "Charming Wife" and defeats Homer's defense/has success.

Homer - "Maaaaaaaarge, but I just took the trash out..." - Uses his "Bluffing Bafoonery". But Marge interjects with her "History Hoarder" (immediate interrupt triggered on a Bluff attack agasint her) which gives her a bonus to her defense against Bluff attacks or gives Bluff attacks some kind of negative. Homer fails.

Etc, etc. Homer would probably have "Play Dumb", "Fluster", "Stall", "Redirect" resources and Marge would probably have things like "The Way to His Heart is Through His Tummy" or "Involve the Kids" resources or something. Now you could run this until someone moves down the stress track until they're stressed out or you could have each resolution add dice favorable to the winner to a "doom pool" that is rolled once the situation is resolved. The results of that pool then dictate the outcome. Ultimately, Marge might get Homer to take out the trash, he might fluster her into doing it herself (and perhaps granting her a plot point for future usage), or somethiing else tangentially related might happen (perhaps some greater conflict arises if the dice so dictate).

I think you could make it functional. Is it a fun, tactical mini-game for social conflict thats actually of use to folks? I don't know. But I do think you could make it functional from a mechanical level (action economy, deployable resources, and ultimate resolution mechanic) and set up resources schemes to support it.

 

[Ratskinner]

It won't happen until early fall but I likely will. I still have to finalize and post my hack. But honestly, that won't be too difficult. There is already a decent enough generic hack for sword and sorcery out there so I'll use some of that and manipulate things as needed to make it sufficiently "D&Dish".

Cool. I suffer from currently living in an area with a paucity of indie-friendly gamers. Well, that and a lack of time...

<snippage>
I think you could make it functional. Is it a fun, tactical mini-game for social conflict thats actually of use to folks? I don't know. But I do think you could make it functional from a mechanical level (action economy, deployable resources, and ultimate resolution mechanic) and set up resources schemes to support it.

Could be. Most of the games I know that handle that kind of thing well aren't very popular so I still can't help answer the "fun or useful" part adequately. The core of such a system would be fairly adaptable, but the list of resources, I suspect, it would be hard to make consistent for a very wide array of source. (Unless you went generic free-form.)

 

[am181d]

At least half the rules in more inward-focused games drive making the character drivers visible to the GM and the table while at the same time giving everyone a common expectation of where play is likley to go and the effective level of difficulty to overcome the challenges. I find they realy help in helping me determine what scenes make sense, are engaging, and offer reasonable tension for the table.

Sorry if I lost track of it in the thread, but do you have an example of a particular rule from a particular game that is a significant improvement on (a) coming up with story hooks for characters prior to the start of play (flaws, motivations, relationships, etc.) and (b) aligning player and gamemaster expectations on what sort of campaign this will be (heavy on combat, heavy on story and social interaction, etc.)?

My sense is the rules in such games are generally a place holder for the conversations above. As was noted elsewhere, I would be extremely wary of a system that introduced complex story mechanics (ala combat) that obviated the need for roleplaying all together.

 

[pemerton]

this is definitely the way to go wrt recent D&D design. However, it is rather limited to the DM-side of things. Would it be "legit" to p42 an Intimidation check in or before combat as dealing damage?

Good question. It's all a bit unclear, I think.

A similar question that LostSoul and I discussed once was how to adjudicate Diplomacy used to restore lost hp.