D&D 4E The Best Thing from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

The DM has zero ability to set the course of action for the party. If the PC sorcerer wants to explore the boundaries of magic, then that's certainly something you can always do, but you're unlikely to discover anything that the DM doesn't already know. (Like I said, the DM should have known beforehand that casting X spell in Y location would produce Z result.) The players can never surprise the DM about how things actually work. The DM sets all of the laws of physics of the world, including the laws of magic. And it must be that way - the DM must know everything - since the DM is the one tasked with adjudicating the resolution of all actions.

I don't remember much about that other game, where the players could earn XP by catching the DM in a lie, beyond its existence. As a practical matter, it's just not feasible to run a game that way, since the players are free to do anything they want, and the DM can't stop them. As a matter of necessity, the DM will be required to improvise things as they come up. And I think the ideal here, which the DM should attempt to uphold as much as possible - for the sake of the players - is that anything you make up extemporaneously should be indistinguishable from anything you set in stone beforehand. Don't "cheat" now, just because it would be easy. Don't let yourself be influenced by knowledge that you wouldn't have had beforehand. Be fair.

So, then, the question becomes, what in Pemerton's chaos magic item story violates that tenet? What in my Stinking Cloud improvisation story breaks that tenet? Those are both IME very classic 4e DMing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just focusing on (1) - how does the GM decide? As in, what considerations are meant to be taken into account?

The only consideration is "Does it make sense, in this world, for the situation at hand?"

Just as a person, you want your friend (the player) to be having fun with this game. You don't need to consider whether the action will be fun for the player, though, because he or she would not try to attempt the action if that was not the case.

As for the rest of it, and genre conventions? The DM should know how the world works. You created the world, after all. You have responsibility for adjudicating these things. If the action makes sense to you, in your mental model of the world, then the players can do it within the world. If your vision of the world is not one where chaotic energies can be channelled into an item, then the world doesn't work that way. (And the characters, who have lived in this world for decades, should have a pretty good idea about whether such things make sense for that world; there should be no need to actually play out such an inevitable failure.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

So, then, the question becomes, what in Pemerton's chaos magic item story violates that tenet?

Now that I know the function of the Arcana skill in 4E, nothing at all. It's just a magician manipulating arcane energies in an accustomed matter that makes sense to the DM for the world at hand.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The only consideration is "Does it make sense, in this world, for the situation at hand?"

Just as a person, you want your friend (the player) to be having fun with this game. You don't need to consider whether the action will be fun for the player, though, because he or she would not try to attempt the action if that was not the case.

As for the rest of it, and genre conventions? The DM should know how the world works. You created the world, after all. You have responsibility for adjudicating these things. If the action makes sense to you, in your mental model of the world, then the players can do it within the world. If your vision of the world is not one where chaotic energies can be channelled into an item, then the world doesn't work that way. (And the characters, who have lived in this world for decades, should have a pretty good idea about whether such things make sense for that world; there should be no need to actually play out such an inevitable failure.)

But then you are back to Pemerton's point of the 'Spartan World' because its implausible that the DM has a coherent understanding of a theory of magic to present and use the principles of which to determine whether or not the PC's idea has merit or not. D&D presents no theories as to how magic actually works, or what principles are involved, etc. beyond random bits of color and what you can build out of its entirely gamist mechanics. That's SOMETHING, but the only real way the DM can adjudicate in a 'knowledgeable' way is to simply state that nothing is possible except what the rules spell out, and possibly other things that are basically indistinguishable from those (IE I'm granting the leeway that if a player makes up a new spell for his PC to research that you can credibly say that the DM 'knows' it will work, but note that Gygax's criteria for that were TOTALLY GAMIST).

Now, I think it is within the realm of possibility that your DM may be one who has expounded in some fashion on some theory of magic, but I'm going to say as well that I find it unlikely that such a theory is highly developed. The main reason for this is that such theories inevitably clash with the existing system too much, since it IS totally gamist and really admits of no overarching principles.

The upshot being that the DM really in an practical sense must just make a judgement call, probably entirely based on gamist considerations, as to what happens when the PC fiddles with the rules of magic to try to do something new. Its going to be yanked out of thin air. Of course every reasonable DM is going to try to maintain suspension of disbelief and cloth his gamist response in some sort of 'logic' to make a nice narrative. So I'm not really sure that your requirements here are any more stringent than ours, except you seem to prefer that the gamist and fairly arbitrary ad-hoc aspect of it be kept out of sight if at all possible.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think it best we take this to PMs

Careful, my emoticon fu is strong!

Thanks for all your thoughts and work to help me understand. No rush on those examples, but I am looking forward to them. Actual in-game examples and then GM (or player) thoughts on those experiences are always uniquely informative.

Alright, I decided to go with a different one because it is shorter! Sblocked the quoted text below for quick reference. Hopefully it makes sense.

[sblock]

The young boy in your arms tugs at the sleeve of your forest-hued doublet. He whispers into your ear "...we are from the bad place in the smokey mountains with the burning tree."

The blue-eyed girl speaks up through quivering voice; "They take all the children there...they say that when we ripen, 'he who hunts' will eat us or make us his own...we will be a part of him." She looks down and she says "...those are our parents..."

Off in the distance you hear a howl. That howl is returned by another...and that one another still. The howls continue for a few moments and abruptly cut off.

What are you planning to do? The rain is pounding and the mountain air is cold.

Well, I can't do anything until the children are somewhere secret...somewhere safe

Perhaps the children know of a nearby village that isn't associated with this cult (or whatever I've uncovered here). If so, I can speak to the elders and see if they can take in these children while I investigate "the bad place in the smokey mountains with the burning tree."

Regardless of their answer to the above, I'm going to draw from the rain-soaked soil and invoke the primal spirits of Always Falling. As the rivers and rains of the world wash away all trace of what came before, I will draw a muddy line across each of the children's foreheads, and my own, and invoke the Ritual Pass Without Trace.

After the children answer my question, I'm going to head toward the village if they can provide guidance, placing 2 of the smaller children on the back of my trusted bear companion. Hopefully, his soft fur, warmth, and mighty countenance will provide them comfort.

If the children cannot provide guidance, I will find a shelter for them here, where they are secure from the elements and invulnerable to predators, and then find my own way. I will leave my bear companion with them to protect them. I believe I heard the sound of running water when I first came to my senses in this place. It may have just been the heavy rains, but I'll go back that way first. We're clearly in the mountains, so the runoff must collect somewhere. Given the geography, I know there must be a cave systems. I will seek one out near water.

[sblock]

Pass Without Trace requires no roll, just 10 GP in component expenditure which I will spend.

My Nature skill modifier is 13. I rolled an 8. 13 + 8 = 21.

[/sblock]

The young, blue-eyed girl appears to the least shaken of the lot here. As you mark her forehead and invoke the primal spirits of your ritual, she says "We lived in another place in the mountains...along the fastwaters...we lived there until we ripened. The oracle says all the children must then go to the place with the burning tree to get us ready for 'he who hunts'..."

---

"I will find a shelter for them here, where they are secure from the elements and invulnerable to predators"

We will handle the above conflict as a Complexity 1 Skill Challenge. You gain a success with your use of Pass Without Trace and your Nature check passes the medium DC.

[TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD]2/4 success[/TD] [TD]0/3 failures[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE]

---

The children follow you in a neat line, the two smallest mounted upon your bear. He is careful to assure their awkward balance and he patiently ignores the harsh tugging as they latch onto his thick fur.

Your understanding of such terrain is as acute as ever. You follow the runoff as it meanders with the terrain, aggregates in a small collecting pool, and rushes over a 30 foot precipice in a gentle fall. At the bottom is a much larger drainage basin where many large rocks, possibly left over from the last time the winter spirits brought encroaching glaciers, separate the natural reservoir from a running river. You imagine that this area likely floods during the wet season.

The cliff face beneath you is pocked with caves and you're quite certain that there is a thriving ecosystem here...surely with an apex predator. As you survey the scene below you, your eyes are drawn to multiple yellow dots as a pack of hyenas, slick fur as black as the dead of night, chase a mountain lion off of her hard-earned kill...emitting their disturbing laugh as they claim the kill. The desperate mountain lion is surely starved for a meal and she probably has cubs. She is chased off in your direction and begins bounding up the face...even with your keen eyesight, she sees better than you in the moonlight.

Scavengers. While I fully understand their place in nature, I have never been able to respect a creature who lives off another's hard work. To my left, the mountain lion is slowly meandering. It will soon pick up a scent, perhaps mine or that of the younglings. Silently, I remove the younglings from the back of my bear. They huddle in a small group, soothing each other with their close presence. My bear looks at me inquisitively and I respond by simply pointing down at the hyenas. His eyes narrow and his feet immediately start leading him down a path to the right that will allow him to sneak up behind the hyenas as they munch on their stolen meet.

He disappears off into the brush and I wait.

I hear him again before I can see him-- snapping twigs, whipping branches, and heavy patter converge upon the startled hyenas. He nears them, rears upon his hind legs and roars.

---

I am trying to startle the hyenas away from the stolen kill and make them retreat into the forest.

[sblock]
My intimidate modifier is +5. I rolled a 14. 14 + 5 = 19.
[/sblock]

I think this will pass. If it does, my bear will back off into the brush and return. Hopefully the mountain lion will be lured back to investigate the loud noises and find her kill available again. I will stand guard to protect the children should she advance on our location. After it is secure, we will go down to the creek (away from the mountain lion) and take shelter in a defensible cave.

If this fails and the hyenas attack my bear, we return in kind.

[TABLE="width: 500"] [TR] [TD]3/4 Successes[/TD] [TD]0/3 Failures[/TD] [/TR] [/TABLE] Precisely that happens.

---

The hyenas' collective cackling yelps grow more distant as the imposing bear runs them off of their stolen kill. They may feel confident against a lone mountain lion, but clearly they want no part of a the the bear's promise of primal fury. They cowardly slink away. When he feels confident that he has run them off, he turns back.

The mountain lion's attention is caught immediately on the ruckus. When she notes that the bear isn't interested in claiming her kill, she gracefully saunters over to it and begins feasting. No doubt her cubs are nearby, waiting for the "all clear" signal.

---

The U-shaped cliff face abuts the large drainage basin with approximately 40 - 60 feet of shoreline clearance. Several cave openings pock the cliff face. Two in particular catch your eye. The first appears halfway down the face and would require either a climb down from the top or lowing the children onto a shallow balcony. It may have been, or be, a den of large avian predators. The second is at ground level, so accessible by earthbound creatures, but heavily, and artificially, obscured by manipulated, dense foliage. Your certain that this is, or was, occupied by creatures possessed of the cognitive capacity to expertly camouflage a den...possibly an ancient, makeshift lodge for big-game hunters.

Should something happen to me or delay my return, it would be preferable that the children have the ability to easily leave the cave on their own. The cave at ground level would be optimal. It would also allow easy access to the water stream and, perhaps, some wild fruit that is growing along the shorelines. I feel confident that my bear's presence will deter most, if not all, earthbound creatures that might call the cave home. If his presence doesn't do this, his bite most surely will.

Before I move all the younglings down to the cave, I must first ensure its immediate safety. By myself, I creep through the foliage to scout out the cave.

---

Let me know what I find within and I'll respond with further action once I know more.

The cave has a hewn cathedral ceiling, possibly 15 feet high. Its width and depth are both roughly 25 * 25. Initial inspection seems to indicate that this is a dugout notched into the cliff face long ago. The immediate purpose is not clear. However, the most recent residents still occupy the cave. In the back there are a pair of skeletons in dusty, ancient brass armor, with wicker and brass shields and spears nearby. One skeleton is holding the head of the other in its lap. They both lie on a large bed of dried, scattered wolfsbane, the beautiful flowers having long given up their purple luster to the ages. Directly over the shoulder of the skeletal figure who cradles the prone remains is a message scrawled in charcoal. The language is archaic but it does seem to share some characters that you are familiar with. It will take further inspection to clarify.

Adjacent to the dead, a broken altar lies in ruins and a mostly shattered ceramic container with a dusty scroll spilled forth from its remnants. On a nearby wall there is a firepit vented by a natural chimney. A blackened crucible still hangs over the pit, the silver inside of it still curiously viscous rather than solid. A pot filled with long-hardened slag is within reach for the smelter.

While the various remains scattered throughout the cave are instantly intriguing, my first course must be to ensure that the cave is secure. How did these people die? Surrounded by wolfsbane, my first inclination is to think that werewolves must be involved. If so, this cave might not be safe for the children if there is any evidence that the lycans know of its existence. Perhaps their bodies contain some evidence as to how they met their fate.

---

I am searching for signs of what killed them.

[sblock]
My heal modifier is an 11. I rolled a 7. 11 + 7 = 18
[/sblock]

---

After my analysis of their bodies, I will examine the archaic language and hope that it will fill in any missing pieces that are missing from my examination of the body.

[sblock]
My history modifier is a 7. I rolled a 17. 7 + 17 = 24
[/sblock]

---

Last, I will scrutinize the cave to ensure its overall safety, defensibility, and benefits. I am looking for anything that could be a sign of danger, such as recent animal tracks. I also want to ensure that the entrance I came in is the only point of egress. For benefits, I am looking for any fresh edible plants that could be growing in the caves and water streams.

[sblock]
My perception modifier is a 14. I rolled a 10. 14 + 10 = 24
[/sblock]

I'm assuming everything passes. I'll await to see how much information I can gain.

[/sblock]

Alright so we have the Feywild PC here who has just followed a spectral stag through a portal under the moonlight to who-knows-where? In the pouring rain and darkness, she immediately stumbled upon some terrible ritual. In the end, the infernal ritualists were slain or run off and the PC was saddled with seeing to a terrified collection of children.

She wants to get help from a local village (so they can take in the children and tell her where the hell she is), but she deems the first order of business to find a secured shelter, safe from the elements and predators, where she can stow the children (and leave her Bear companion behind to protect them) while she goes and looks for a village.

Not a terribly dramatic conflict in and of itself, but the safe-keeping of the children is important to her both emotionally and from a utility perspective. Some interesting gameplay can come out of this, possibly some trouble, possibly some heartache.

So she initiates the conflict and I adjudicate the parameters that I think would best fit the challenge. My thinking:

1) While there certainly are some interesting things that could arise from this, there is a relative dearth of them compared to other opportunities for adventure.

2) The stakes are not low, but they aren't terribly high.

3) It isn't absolutely central to the thematic premise of the game.

From that, I go with complexity 1 SC to resolve:

4 success before 3 failures. 1 secondary skill (because complexity 1). 0 hard DCs (and 0 advantages - they come into play @ comp 3 and above).\

At the table, this would be overtly established in conversation including markers for the various parts (tokens for SS and counter dice for success and failures).

---

As you can see, her first two action declarations are in her lead post. If this was done at the table, the conversation would intersect more intimately and I would have presented a complication between her Ritual deployment and Nature usage. However, it almost assuredly would have been geographically related (and she probably knew that having gamed a lot with me...and it is pretty intuitive), so fair enough.

She masks the presence of their movements with Pass Without Trace (spending the requisite gold for the ritual), earning her 1 success.

She then uses her Nature skill to track down the sound of running water, extrapolating that the runoff must collect in a basin/reservoir somewhere. She is expecting to find caves there near this water. Due to her successful check, the following happens:

Manbearcat
The children follow you in a neat line, the two smallest mounted upon your bear. He is careful to assure their awkward balance and he patiently ignores the harsh tugging as they latch onto his thick fur.

Your understanding of such terrain is as acute as ever. You follow the runoff as it meanders with the terrain, aggregates in a small collecting pool, and rushes over a 30 foot precipice in a gentle fall. At the bottom is a much larger drainage basin where many large rocks, possibly left over from the last time the winter spirits brought encroaching glaciers, separate the natural reservoir from a running river. You imagine that this area likely floods during the wet season.

The cliff face beneath you is pocked with caves and you're quite certain that there is a thriving ecosystem here...surely with an apex predator. As you survey the scene below you, your eyes are drawn to multiple yellow dots as a pack of hyenas, slick fur as black as the dead of night, chase a mountain lion off of her hard-earned kill...emitting their disturbing laugh as they claim the kill. The desperate mountain lion is surely starved for a meal and she probably has cubs. She is chased off in your direction and begins bounding up the face...even with your keen eyesight, she sees better than you in the moonlight.

So she successfully navigates the runoff to a collecting pool, at the top of some cliffs, which falls into a larger drainage basin. The cliff face has the sort of natural shelters that she is looking for but there will be a decision-point in which she chooses for shelter. More imminent however, is a potential encounter with a ravenous mountain lion (who likely has cubs to protect), possibly stirring up more trouble with all the racket/noise (and putting the children in danger).

She decides that the best course of action is to send her Bear down to scare off the hyenas, who have claimed the lion's hard-earned kill, and hopefully the lion will reclaim her kill rather than pursuing her current course. Using her own Intimidate check (later he will be a full-fledged companion character with his own Initimidate check), we resolve this action declaration.

She succeeds. Now we are right at the cusp of an earned success in the challenge, which would mean a secure and safe shelter for the children to hole up in while she looks for a village. So it is time for a decision between a few prospects:

Manbearcat
The U-shaped cliff face abuts the large drainage basin with approximately 40 - 60 feet of shoreline clearance. Several cave openings pock the cliff face. Two in particular catch your eye. The first appears halfway down the face and would require either a climb down from the top or lowing the children onto a shallow balcony. It may have been, or be, a den of large avian predators. The second is at ground level, so accessible by earthbound creatures, but heavily, and artificially, obscured by manipulated, dense foliage. Your certain that this is, or was, occupied by creatures possessed of the cognitive capacity to expertly camouflage a den...possibly an ancient, makeshift lodge for big-game hunters.

She decides to check out the cave at ground level due to the following reasoning:

Binks
Should something happen to me or delay my return, it would be preferable that the children have the ability to easily leave the cave on their own. The cave at ground level would be optimal. It would also allow easy access to the water stream and, perhaps, some wild fruit that is growing along the shorelines. I feel confident that my bear's presence will deter most, if not all, earthbound creatures that might call the cave home. If his presence doesn't do this, his bite most surely will.

Before I move all the younglings down to the cave, I must first ensure its immediate safety. By myself, I creep through the foliage to scout out the cave.

She goes inside and finds some mysterious stuff that could be threatening or not. This stuff includes some remains. She inspects the entirety of the cave, securing it in the process, thus cementing her success in the challenge and binding the my own "move" as affirmation of her goals; safe, secured shelter to house the children while she explores for a village.

---

Alright. Now we didn't have any micro-failures in this that would have resulted in failing forward. Those would have resulted in Healing Surges lost and immediate fallout that would need to be overcome. What we did have was a run of successes which require the fiction changing in interesting ways that either outright complicate the PC's attainment of her objective or force a strategic (typically aimed at setting up the fiction toward her resource wheel-house or a SS buff) and dramatic decision-point.

Couple if-thens to relate what might have happened (all assuming that they don't cement the SC as failure):

- if she would have failed that Nature check, then she would have lost an HS and I might have introduced some sort of geographical hazard; eg mud-slide.

- if she would have failed that Intimidate check, then she would have lost an HS and I might have had the hyenas be indifferent to the bear's threats and have kept the hungry mountain lion on her present track, heading straight for the bear-less Saerie and her group of children that she is trying to protect.

- if she failed in her efforts at securing the cave, then she would have lost an HS and I might have turned it into the temple in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade whereby she accidentally just triggered a trap...or a den with something lurking...rather than a fortified, defensible natural shelter.

Finally, it is hard to say where things have gone if she would have failed throughout the course of it. The fiction would have changed pretty considerably. However, I'm pretty certain that if she would have failed the SC outright with those hyenas or the mountain lion being the relevant threat at the moment, I would have charged her an HS and we would have begun a combat encounter whereby all of the children are one-hit-kill minions (with some kind of attack - like throwing rocks - and utility power defense each) and she has to control/kill the bad guys and keep them off of the kids. Then, down several resources and possibly some kids, she could attempt to start anew (a C1 SC).

---

So why is that not vulnerable to illusionism. In no particular order:

1) The resolution mechanics are codified and explicit.

2) The GM's job and principles are clear.

3) The PC build mechanics are properly synthesized with the resolution mechanics to achieve coherency between the two.

4) The GM's latitude is tightly and overtly constrained. If they attempt to break those constraints, such as deny the player the earned, secure shelter for the children (despite the SC victory and the explicated stakes), their bad faith will be utterly apparent.

So we have interesting, dynamic gameplay. We have strategic and/or dramatic decision-points. We have transparent, coherent play procedures. We have the guarantee of above-board, good-faith GMing.

---

Now let us take a look at how AD&D handles this and compare it with 1-4 above.

In AD&D, the handling procedure is to consult the Natural Shelter table for the given terrain/locale, roll percentile dice, determine success/failure. So here I would be rolling vs 40 % (Natural Shelter - Mountain). If they fail and they want to try again, it is 3 turns worth of searching so I’m rolling 1 or more times for random encounters. Those random encounters could be stock from the DMG or of my own devising (both type/kind and frequency).

Now an interesting intersection of the rules is how do nonproficiencies play into this? There are lots of them that would seem applicable; eg Alertness, Athletics, Direction Sense, Geography, Mountaineering. However, none of these NWPs are actually synthesized with the conflict resolution mechanics of % to find Natural Shelter. So if the player is going to have any agency, any decision-points at all (and the resultant fiction being anything resembling interesting or dynamic), I'm going to have to wing the synthesis of PC build resources > resolution mechanics entirely. Unless, of course, they deploy a spell...

Outside of the latitude of rule 0 and hiding percentage chance to succeed (and hiding rolls behind screens), this is probably the major issue with AD&D and illusionism. Either the rules outright do not canvass very central aspects of mundane noncombat resolution that are key to functional play…or, where they do, the intersection of PC build mechanics and conflict resolution mechanics are a tangled mess of incoherency. This is a goldmine for illusionism GMing.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But then you are back to Pemerton's point of the 'Spartan World' because its implausible that the DM has a coherent understanding of a theory of magic to present and use the principles of which to determine whether or not the PC's idea has merit or not. D&D presents no theories as to how magic actually works, or what principles are involved, etc. beyond random bits of color and what you can build out of its entirely gamist mechanics.

Really? I hadn't considered that someone might try to run an entire game, without so much as developing a theory about how magic actually works - at least well enough to answer anything that the PCs attempt.

In keeping with the idea that 4E is supposed to be friendly for new players, though, I guess it makes sense that youmight have an inexperienced DM who hadn't really thought about it much. That seems like something you'd grow out of over time, though; nobody is a great DM, right off the bat. Eventually, as players keep asking questions and you keep trying to answer them, you would figure out what does or does-not make sense to you.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really? I hadn't considered that someone might try to run an entire game, without so much as developing a theory about how magic actually works - at least well enough to answer anything that the PCs attempt.

I have been a DM of D&D games starting with OD&D and Holme's Basic back in 1976, built several settings, and run 1000's upon 1000's of games across probably 50 campaigns. I have no idea how magic works in any sort of conceptual sense.

I can see that at various points the designers of different elements of D&D spells, lore, cosmology, monsters, items, etc have employed various concepts of 'classic' magic, such as similarity, contagion, the rule of threes, as well as various other theories and ad-hoc informal or simply entirely made-up concepts and principles. The game clearly posits that some forms of magic require study and mastery and involve mental 'energy' which is expended when certain formulaic spells are cast. Other magic lacks this restriction and is granted by divine beings (the nature and capabilities of which are pretty much open, though some books stated various mechanical details that evolved over time and often conflicted).

So, no, I, and every other of the 100's of DMs I've associated with over that neigh onto 40 year span, has ever come up with a coherent theory of magic of any sort. At best we could pull something out of our ears like "yeah, the blood of a strong dragon should make you strong!" or something equally nebulous and which could be or not be true at the DM's whim pretty much.

In keeping with the idea that 4E is supposed to be friendly for new players, though, I guess it makes sense that youmight have an inexperienced DM who hadn't really thought about it much. That seems like something you'd grow out of over time, though; nobody is a great DM, right off the bat. Eventually, as players keep asking questions and you keep trying to answer them, you would figure out what does or does-not make sense to you.

Yeah, I don't think that really happens. I think DMs learn to use the chances that players give them to make the game turn out in a cool and interesting way. An inexperienced DM might say "No, you cannot use the dragon blood to make a potion of fire breathing!" because he reasons PCs should have to work for their treasure. Later on said DM will probably realize that it would be perfectly cool to let the PCs make the potion, but he can now send them on another quest to find the other ingredients, which he will make up on the spot and are guaranteed to be hard enough to find that it will be interesting. A really advanced DM might even consider something like telling the wizard that he has to make a pact with a salamander to learn the secret of fire breath potion making, which he knows will lead to a moral dilemma when said salamander demands that he in turn give up the location of an item that it will probably use for evil purposes.

Such, IME is the trajectory of evolution in DMing. In no case have I seen it involve the elaboration and invention of detailed theories of magic as a requisite of DMing expertise. Now, there are undoubtedly settings in which something of that sort has been done. Dark Sun of course famously introduced some elements to magic in Athas, but they never really explained defiling or how it exactly worked outside of the bare mechanical/narrative fact of it. I don't even recall that there really were precise mechanics for it. Magic was just 'icky' and you didn't want to use it too much unless you were a bad guy. Its not as if there was a detailed treatise on it that some DM could use to guide a PC wizard who was trying to invent a way around it for instance.

 

[pemerton]

The only consideration is "Does it make sense, in this world, for the situation at hand?"

<snip>

The DM should know how the world works. You created the world, after all. You have responsibility for adjudicating these things. If the action makes sense to you, in your mental model of the world, then the players can do it within the world. If your vision of the world is not one where chaotic energies can be channelled into an item, then the world doesn't work that way.

If the PC sorcerer wants to explore the boundaries of magic, then that's certainly something you can always do, but you're unlikely to discover anything that the DM doesn't already know.

<snip>

The DM sets all of the laws of physics of the world, including the laws of magic. And it must be that way - the DM must know everything - since the DM is the one tasked with adjudicating the resolution of all actions.

This is all the sort of GM-driven approach that 4e tends to depart from.

The DM has zero ability to set the course of action for the party.

I'm not sure how this is consistent with what I've quoted above. It seem that the GM has an overwhelming ability to determine the party's course, because s/he gets to determine what is or isn't possible in the gameworld.

the players are free to do anything they want

I'm not sure what you mean by this. For instance, if a player wants to have his PC create an item by internalising the chaos magic emanating from a firedrake an a nearby portal to the Elemental Chaos, but the GM decides that this is not possible within the gameworld, then the player is not free to do that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Alright, I decided to go with a different one because it is shorter! Sblocked the quoted text below for quick reference. Hopefully it makes sense.

Looks like a pretty standard skill challenge, yep.

So why is that not vulnerable to illusionism. In no particular order:

1) The resolution mechanics are codified and explicit.

This is true.

2) The GM's job and principles are clear.

I think this is true for people that grok skill challenges.

3) The PC build mechanics are properly synthesized with the resolution mechanics to achieve coherency between the two.

Okay.

4) The GM's latitude is tightly and overtly constrained. If they attempt to break those constraints, such as deny the player the earned, secure shelter for the children (despite the SC victory and the explicated stakes), their bad faith will be utterly apparent.

True.

So we have interesting, dynamic gameplay. We have strategic and/or dramatic decision-points. We have transparent, coherent play procedures. We have the guarantee of above-board, good-faith GMing.

Well, mostly. The GM still has total control over the complications when failures present themselves. And say, for instance, we took your consequence for failing the skill challenge and used it in context with the stated goal of the skill challenge.

The stated goal, in your post: "find a secured shelter, safe from the elements and predators, where she can stow the children".

Your stated consequence for a failed skill challenge when hyenas or mountain lions are preset: "I'm pretty certain that if she would have failed the SC outright with those hyenas or the mountain lion being the relevant threat at the moment, I would have charged her an HS and we would have begun a combat encounter whereby all of the children are one-hit-kill minions (with some kind of attack - like throwing rocks - and utility power defense each) and she has to control/kill the bad guys and keep them off of the kids. Then, down several resources and possibly some kids, she could attempt to start anew (a C1 SC)."

No, this doesn't add up to me. Her goal (to find a secure shelter, safe from elements and predators, to stow the children) has failed. There should be no retries, I would think. That doesn't mean she can't find shelter, or a place to stow the children. It just means that it shouldn't be safe or secure.

Also, even if you did allow her to try again, you are the person coming up with the complications on each failure. You can call for combat, or 1 healing surge lost, or 10 healing surges lost, or magic items or blessing disappearing, or loss of a hand or eye, or someone loyal betraying her, or whatever.

This is empowering. It's just not empowering to the player, in my opinion. It allows for a lot of variation in gameplay, but I can see a GM definitely use the rules to attempt a level of illusionist play. A GM can frame the challenge, targeting bad skills of the PCs, and use failure consequences to keep things on the rails. (Obvious bad GMing is obvious, but we're talking of illuionism and how 4e might combat it at a base level.)

Now, let's look at your four points on how this skill challenge helps fight off illusionism with regards to the bad GMing technique I've noted above:
1) The resolution mechanics are codified and explicit: I think this is still the case, even for the bad GM. Advantages, Hard requirements, etc. are all explicitly codified.


2) The GM's job and principles are clear: This one is trickier. The GM probably thinks that they are running a good game, so I'm going to assume they just have poor technique and aren't trying to ruin the fun of the players. The GM's job (setting consequences, framing the scene, etc.) are all clear to this GM.


3) The PC build mechanics are properly synthesized with the resolution mechanics to achieve coherency between the two: Well, PCs have skill modifiers, and can roll skill checks, but that's about where this one ends. If you believe that skill challenges must be tailored to fit PC skill strengths (or explicitly that they are never to target weaknesses), then it fails at this step. Otherwise, this one checks out as well.


4) The GM's latitude is tightly and overtly constrained. If they attempt to break those constraints, such as deny the player the earned, secure shelter for the children (despite the SC victory and the explicated stakes), their bad faith will be utterly apparent: This is true, but there's tons of leeway here with all the failures along the way. And even with success, I can give them their shelter, but if the only plausible success is inconvenient, it might stop other plans they had (she might be able to find shelter for the children, but it might be hard to look for a village from there for some reason).

I don't know. I mean, I'm definitely against railroading players (for my particular style), but I don't think these principles are enough to fight illusionism off completely. I'm fairly sure that I or my brother could run these types of skill challenges and control the narrative quite effectively while still keeping our players happy, if we really wanted to. Would they see what's going on? They'd probably start to suspect it, if it was a regular occurrence. But as long as they're having a good time with it, they'd probably just think the mechanics are working as intended, and indeed might even blame the mechanics themselves rather than the GM ("I wish skill challenges didn't exist; I'd rather just be able to make skill checks over and over again, rather than be arbitrarily cut off or have something bad happen.")

Now let us take a look at how AD&D handles this and compare it with 1-4 above.

[SNIP]

This is a goldmine for illusionism GMing.

Oh yeah, definitely looks easier here. No doubt. I think that 4e (and even the skill challenge system) definitely improved on your description of AD&D (I've never played), but I have no doubt that it could be revised greatly to empower players more (which, in turn, means that there are less rules for a GM to use to keep players on the rails).

To sum up, I don't think the 4e skill challenge system bucks against your illusionism (as I understand it) that hard, but it certainly bucks harder than AD&D as you've described it. I think it has great potential to be revised and built upon, though, to help combat illusionism (again, as I understand it) much more effectively. In the right hands (a GM who doesn't like illusionism), though, it's already a really good tool.

Again, thanks for the precise and clear reply.

 

[Razjah]

Disclosure, I started with 4e. My very first role playing game was 4e right before college. At college I was plunged into 3.5 before learning about loads of available systems and trying to increase my exposure.

For me it's these three:
1) Class Roles. I loved the idea of building a coherent party. In many other systems you build your character to do his or her thing. In 4e you build so the group kicks ass. I like the change, I also like that the classes actually did their role. Not like 3.5/pathfinder where the GM needs to have enemies actually go meet melee guys. 4e lets them protect the squishy teammates by making attacks more difficult and punishing them. My groups with early editions (and non-D&D games) build in isolation. But 4e let me think about team tactics. A cleric doesn't grant the same amount of extra attacks a warlord does, but you need to worry about healing less so it changes some power options you favor. Also the roles make loads of sense to a new player, it really helped me understand the combat side of things as a newbie.

2) Healing surges. No cleric needed! Lots of ways to heal with other classes or on your own. Plus warlords can heal people by yelling at them to suck it up, I love it. I also like that they often allow actions that hurt enemies to grant healing, no boring "Medic" role (I hate playing a medic) but I can fight while helping people- that is a sweet deal for me. I see people get down on the mechanic, but I like it. I think the name is super bland, but I like the effect. Plus is could be used a resource for narrating daunting travel or other hazards.

3) Skill Challenges. Before seeing this, I never saw skills implemented as an encounter. Working as a group to achieve X successes before Y failures was awesome. The numbers may have been messed up, but I've use this concept in many other games and brought it to 3.5 and Pathfinder games I ran. I also liked how it could be combined with combat. Fighter, cleric and sorcerer hold off the hordes of undead while the rogue and wizard fix the magic pillars that radiate holy energy to drive back the undead.