Stakes and consequences in action resolution

[Ratskinner]

The most developed non-combat resolution system for D&D that I'm aware of is the skill challenge in 4e. It needs your (a) but no rulebook directly states it. A GM needs either to bring that from outside (normally by experience with another game with better-stated rules), or intuit it, or else complain that skill challenges are broken because we have to keep rolling the dice even though the conflict is resolved!

I agree, although I think the Skill Challenge was a bit clunky overall.

I'm not sure about your (1). In 4e the standard solution is to just ignore all the quasi-simulationist stuff in the PHB skills chapter (which is mostly dropped in Essentials, for good reason). I'm not sure that 5e skills are really even quasi-simulatoinist, though I'm not the best qualified to comment. I think the issue is less about quasi-simulation and more about setting appropriate expectations for players and GMs: eg having a good Investigation skill means (something like) when a conflict involves investigating stuff, than I'm more likely to succeed at that conflict than others. This will cause a lot of players to go ballistic but for culture/expectation reasons rather than narrowly mechanical reasons.

I think my problem here is that after a game like Capes, its really hard to fuzz my eyes as much as I used to. Capes doesn't even have skills. You just have traits. The traits can be almost anything: "Hit 'em with the scenery", "Do a dozen things at the same time." (remember its a supers game) So, when its a character's turn, the controlling player just picks one and narrates a relevant bit of story (there's some complicated dice/point manipulation stuff, too). Thing is, your ratings in the abilities don't correspond to any sort of "power level" or "ability level". So one character might have "Interplanetary Flight" at 1 and another has "Angel Wings" at 5. The wings are "objectively" less powerful in the narrative context, but in a game where "Impress Allison" can be a goal, the wings will be more useful. The trait ratings end up being solely a rough measure of how much you want a given trait to matter in this character's story.

Your (2) is a recurring issue in 4e play, although most of us who care have developed various sorts of workarounds/coping mechanisms. It's an issue even in a system that one might expect to be tighter than 4e, like BW:

I think the best I've seen is the Forged in the Dark games (based of Blades in the Dark). There's good discussions in those games about "clocks", which to my eyes are very similar if not the same as Conflict Resolution (I think there's some wiggle room, depending on how the GM runs a given clock). Its not the most sophisticated discussion ever, but they do discuss things like contingent or sequential clocks. Of course, they have the advantage of a system that uses the same resolution mechanics for all conflicts (at least during the mission/adventure/heist). In Capes, creating conflicting Conflicts is just a way for the players to manipulate the "not yet" rule. (At the player level, Capes is competitive and GMless.)

 

[pemerton]

I think my problem here is that after a game like Capes, its really hard to fuzz my eyes as much as I used to. Capes doesn't even have skills. You just have traits. The traits can be almost anything: "Hit 'em with the scenery", "Do a dozen things at the same time." (remember its a supers game) So, when its a character's turn, the controlling player just picks one and narrates a relevant bit of story (there's some complicated dice/point manipulation stuff, too). Thing is, your ratings in the abilities don't correspond to any sort of "power level" or "ability level". So one character might have "Interplanetary Flight" at 1 and another has "Angel Wings" at 5. The wings are "objectively" less powerful in the narrative context, but in a game where "Impress Allison" can be a goal, the wings will be more useful. The trait ratings end up being solely a rough measure of how much you want a given trait to matter in this character's story.

That's much closer to HeroWars/Quest, and especially HeroQuest revised, than to any version of D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

A very high-level glance at this thread shows me this, rightly or wrongly: a general distaste for, and active avoidance of, any role-play of in-character information gathering.

There's going to be times - lots and lots and lots of times - where at first glance the PCs in the fiction do not and cannot know all or any of the potential consequences of any action(s) they take, because they simply do not and cannot (yet) have all the information. And if the PCs don't know then nor should the players...until and unless the players through their PCs do some digging.

If this liquid gets spilled, what happens? The floor gets wet? The floor gets slippery? The floor dissolves? A demon is summoned to the room? Everyone in the room is returned to full health and sanity? All the PCs see is some liquid, of amount and colour as narrated assuming it's in a see-through container. Any more info than that, including possible consequences of spilling it or drinking it or doing anything else with it, is not available until the players through their PCs somehow investigate for it. Said investigation could come via opening a container and sniffing it, and-or using whatever lore/knowledge mechanics they have available to source info on liquids that match what's here, and-or so forth. But it's on them to do it, and certainly not on the GM to give them the results anyway even if they don't do it.

But if on seeing the containers of liquid they just walk up and smash one the GM is under no obligation whatsoever to say a word beyond simply narrating whatever happens next: any consequences - be they good, bad, or neutral - are completely self-inflicted.

With the jump-the-pit example, all a player has to do to largely establish the stakes is to have her PC glance down the pit before jumping and see what's in there. No bottom found at 30' is going to imply a vastly different set of possible consequences for a failed jump than seeing a feathery mattress 6 feet down.

 

[Aldarc]

A very high-level glance at this thread shows me this, rightly or wrongly: a general distaste for, and active avoidance of, any role-play of in-character information gathering.

There's going to be times - lots and lots and lots of times - where at first glance the PCs in the fiction do not and cannot know all or any of the potential consequences of any action(s) they take, because they simply do not and cannot (yet) have all the information. And if the PCs don't know then nor should the players...until and unless the players through their PCs do some digging.

Given the prominent prior discussion of Blades in the Dark, I can point out one potential misconception here. Roleplay of in-character information gathering would be encouraged in BitD because the player characters would likely gain a greater Position for certain rolls when performing their heists through doing so.

 

[Manbearcat]

Alright, so I wanted to get a quick example up of Dungeon World play and what it would look like if you imported some Blades in the Dark to it.

DUNGEON WORLD PLAY EXCERPT

The PCs (Druid and Fighter) are on a ridge-line overlooking a vast chasm that has opened up due to a natural or unnatural cataclysm (to be determined). They recently discovered that the sealed prison colony that was a hole bore deep into the earth under this area, The Devil’s Bowels, was cleaved and now lies exposed to the open world. Some activity far below led her to send her Owl Companion on a flight over the trench so she could see what it was (Hunter’s Brother giving her a Ranger companion and Eyes of the Tiger allowing her to see through the eyes of marked animals).

Interestingly, her Discern Realities move failed with a 1 and a 2 rolled. Typically this calls for a “Hard Move” with immediate consequences. However, some moves (like Spout Lore, Discern Realities and a few others) and some situations work better (from a play principle perspective) if the GM makes a “Soft Move” (a new threat that may turn into immediate consequences if not acted upon). However, sometimes even Discern Realities calls for a Hard Move.

The players understand this.

The move I made was a Hard Move. The creature seems to swoon suddenly after it spirals down a ways into the dark depths and beholds the action that triggered the Druid’s move. Its orientation thrown off entirely, it begins to plummet, desperately trying to gather its faculties, reorient itself, and regain lift. It manages to prevent a complete splat through its effort. In the pitch black, the druid cannot make out much except for a heavy, chitinous clawed fist that renders the Owl’s unconscious (so she can’t see through its eyes).

So this would either be “Use a Monster or Location” or “Turn their move back on them.” Regardless, the Owl Companion is unavailable to the Druid and in dire peril (demanding their action).

PLAY EXCERPT WITH BLADES TECH

Imagine the same scenario but with:

Position (the state of the fiction that determines how risky/dangerous the move is)

Effect (just what it sounds like)

Intervention (this would be Blades’ Resistance, which is dice throw to throttle back a consequence, which always succeeds, but costs Stress)

Fate (this would be Dungeon World’s analog to Blade’s Stress. These are heroes destined by fate and possibly divinely sponsored…and Death definitely has an interest in them…when they mark their last Fate box, they suffer some kind of manifestation trauma…could be a quest…could be a boon/mark with a cost).

Position always defaults to Risky (medium) and moves from there given the situation. Effect always defaults to Standard and moves from there given the situation. Blades codifies the factors of a situation that would warrant movement of these.

So when the player of the Druid PC makes their move, I say:

“Looks like Desperate Position to me (rather than Risky). We don’t know what’s down there! Bare minimum we know there may be dangerous scoundrels on the loose. Was there a supernatural effect that opened this gaping maw in the earth? Are their dangerous Underdark predators hungry for tasty surface dwellers? How knows? Having your owl spiral down into the deep dark for a look is more than a little dangerous.”

Its very dark, but not totally pitch…but these are Owl’s eyes, so I’ll split the difference and go with Standard Effect.

The player thinks on it…”hmmm, alright. I’m not going to have it spiral too deep into the chasm. Just a fly-by and have it use its keen Owl-sight to give me a look what is down there. Can I have Risky Position for Limited Effect?”

So we go with that. In DW terms, this would mean that the Owl can’t get a 10+, so the equivalent of a 7-9 effect (only 1 question, rather than 3, and +1 forward acting on that singular question) is the best she can get.

Because she brokered Limited Effect for Risky Position, she knows that, if she fails, the consequence that I imposed upon the situation above aren’t on the table.

Further still, if she fails and I impose a softer consequence that she still isn’t happy dealing with, she can have “Fate” intervene by making that “Intervention” roll I cited above (and mark some Fate, or Clear 1 Fate if she gets a 12+ result).

---

Like I said, it’s a different cognitive space that players are inhabiting in the latter vs the former, and the general feel of play is altered with the cognitive space and the system machinery that enables it.

 

[pemerton]

A very high-level glance at this thread shows me this, rightly or wrongly: a general distaste for, and active avoidance of, any role-play of in-character information gathering.

Well, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has given one counter-example.

Here's another: in our first session of Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy, one of the first actions taken by the scout PC was to climb atop a pallisade to see what was inside it (mechanically, this established an Overview of the Steading asset). In the next session, the same PC was the one who read mysterious symbols to ascertain that they were, in fact, a map of the dungeon (mechanically, this eliminated a Lost in the Dungeon complication). Gathering information is a tactic that some PCs use to achieve their goals.

What the OP is focused on is techniques for establishing and signalling stakes and consequences to the players that don't require them to play "analytic" PCs.

 

[pemerton]

I think what I’m going to do for this thread is take a pair of similar situations I’ve resolved in DW and Blades and contrast them (to suss out why Blades is a “better” approach for what the two games are trying to accomplish).

Like I said, it’s a different cognitive space that players are inhabiting in the latter vs the former, and the general feel of play is altered with the cognitive space and the system machinery that enables it.

I think I can see the difference - in BitD there is "bidding"/"bargaining" in relation to risk and reward.

But why is that better? It seems potentially to detract from begin and end with the fiction - to me it gives a feeling a bit closer to (say) Cortex+ Heroic, which also involves a fair bit of metagame mechanical manipulation that mediates between fictional input and fictional output.

 

[Manbearcat]

I think I can see the difference - in BitD there is "bidding"/"bargaining" in relation to risk and reward.

But why is that better? It seems potentially to detract from begin and end with the fiction - to me it gives a feeling a bit closer to (say) Cortex+ Heroic, which also involves a fair bit of metagame mechanical manipulation that mediates between fictional input and fictional output.

I can see the resemblance to C+ that you draw there.

Here are the reasons I would say it’s better (3 Cs oddly enough):

Constraint
Clarity
Cognitive Workspace

As you (and surely others) know, I regularly champion systemized GM constraint. It’s one of the reasons I adore the PBtA systems (and Baker’s work broadly). AW and DW constrain the GM elegantly and quite clearly. However, there are some edge cases that arise which temporarily reduce that constraint, requiring the games’ (clear and robust) Agenda and Principles to work extra hard to guide the GM’s move. This is a momentary increase in cognitive workload on the GM and often requires extra play conversation/table time to divulge that workload so the interface between the fiction and the rules meet are clear to the players. Which goes to me next “C”...

Clarity

The Blades tech naturally clarified all cases (so no edge case emerges). The players understand both the magnitude and nature of both their opposition/obstacle and their own efforts. That lets them know the severity of trouble (in terms of immediate Consequences, big C) that’s on the table when they get themselves into a situation, the impact of their own push-back against it(on to the last “C”)...

As a result, their Cognitive Workspace can allow players to then better orient themselves (odds, opportunity cost, etc) to attack the situation or revise their PC’s orientation or their approach in order to assert better control (if that’s feasible) of the arrangement of/relationships of elements in the fiction (including the PCs). Physically, the Position:Effect relationship and the player reorienting themselves is similar to the way a climber, a competitor, or a negotiator evaluates the risk:reward of one course charted versus another.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], thanks for the reply.

I think that, in the OP and some of my elaborations on it, I'm putting less emphasis on clarity and cognitive workspace than you. I think that's what follows from my comments about implicit consequences - that in place of the clarity you describe, and the scope for player evaluation of risk/reward, is substitued shared intuitions/understandings of the fiction.

I'm not sure how this fits into constraint. It's true that the Cortex+ Heroic GM is very constrained. The Cthulhu Dark GM certainly has much more liberty. I have to think more about how this might relate to "force".

 

[Lanefan]

Well, [MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] has given one counter-example.

Here's another: in our ]url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?530990-Into-the-North-Cortex-Plus-Heroic-Fantasy-actual-play]first session[/url] of Cortex+ Heroic Fantasy, one of the first actions taken by the scout PC was to climb atop a pallisade to see what was inside it (mechanically, this established an Overview of the Steading asset). In the next session, the same PC was the one who read mysterious symbols to ascertain that they were, in fact, a map of the dungeon (mechanically, this eliminated a Lost in the Dungeon complication). Gathering information is a tactic that some PCs use to achieve their goals.

Good.

What the OP is focused on is techniques for establishing and signalling stakes and consequences to the players that don't require them to play "analytic" PCs.

If they're not required to play analytic PCs (in other words, not required to do their own work when it comes to information gathering, risk-outcome-reward analysis, and so forth) then one of two outcomes must naturally follow:

- the analysis is done for them, meaning they're very likely to get information that a) by luck or design they might not otherwise acquire and b) is always improbably accurate, complete and error-free.
- the analysis is not done at all, meaning they are flying blind.

Safe bet that nobody wants the second of these options as SOP. But the first just seems to me like giving away the farm - both in and out of character there's no encouragement to do any independent investigation, thinking, or analysis as it's all going to be done for you anyway; and there's a greatly reduced or eliminated chance of flat-out getting it wrong. As a (IMO unwanted) side effect, if stakes are always set before an action can be declared it takes away any opportunity for a player/PC to now and then just throw caution to the wind and in effect choose to fly blind a.k.a. gamble without knowing (or caring about) what might happen next.