D&D 5E 2 year campaign down the drain?

[prabe]

In the Cortex+ Heroic LotR/MERP game I'm running, I framed an Action Scene using a Scene Distinction Uncertain As To The Best Course. (I had in mind Aragorn's uncertainty when the Fellowship camps at Parth Galen, towards the end of Book II.)

The scene couldn't be resolved the players' way until that Scene Distinction had been elminated, by the players declaring actions that would help remove the doubt. It was the player of the Ranger who succeeded in this respect, which meant that he was able to decide what it was that the party did next (namely, pursue the Orcs carrying a palantir south towards Eregion). If the scene had enede dwith the uncertainty still there, I would have started the Action Scene by giving each player some Mental Stress, or perhaps a Doubt complication, at the start of that Scene.

I've never played or GMed Fate, but I would have thought that it could support a similar sort of idea, where a scene-based (rather than character-based) Aspect is used to convey some appropriate emotional or thematic feature of the situation, rather than a purely practical feature. (In my LotR game some Scene Distinctions are practical - eg In the Deeps of Moria.)

I don't think I'm disagreeing with you here, so much as maybe being a bit more optimistic about the prospects for this sort of thing.

Per my understanding of Fate, this would work in that game just fine. There might not be a specific way to remove an Aspect from a scene, but I think it'd be legitimate to play it that way. I mean, if the players can drop an Aspect on a scene (and they can), they should be able to remove one, too.

 

[Fenris-77]

@pemerton - I wasn't disagreeing about D&D, just expanding on some things I had been thinking about. There are games where the players have the ability to create fictive elements, Houses of the Blooded for FATE for example, and that was what I posited as the other end of the spectrum, with PbtA somewhere in the middle. I agree completely about the burden of armed response lying with the GM in this case.

@Ovinomancer - no, player actions aren't binding, and I didn't say they were. Only that they can sometimes serve to narrow the reasonable or appropriate set of consequences that result from their actions.

Here's the different between the guard's reactions and the widget. The reaction or consequence to a social action has an immense range of possibilities. The GM has a lot of leeway to respond appropriately to the player's actions in a bunch of different ways, and thus has a wide range of options vis a vis narrating both success and failure. With the un-found widget, it's either there or it's not. The only option the GM really has is to move it by sleight of hand, or continue to frustrate the players. I'm not judging one of those options as better than another either, sometimes player frustration is a good thing. The range of possibilities that result from an action like I ask the guards if there is way I can get into the castle is pretty manifestly different from I search the maguffin for the widget.

 

[prabe]

PbtA is called that because it is modelled on Vincent Baker's game Apocalypse World. AW has its 8 basic moves, then the more-than-50 class-specific moves. Many of these allow using an atypical stat for a basic move, or enhance a particular stat or ability, or otherwise tweak the core mechanics. Some give new, specialised abilities (eg being able to use a particular piece of technical equipment, or having a special psychic ability). It doesn't have player "narrrative abilities" with the exception of a handful of specialised class options:

Visions of death: when you go into battle, roll+weird. On a 10+, name one person who’ll die and one who’ll live. On a 7–9, name one person who’ll die OR one person who’ll live. Don’t name a player’s character; name NPCs only. The MC will make your vision come true, if it’s even remotely possible. On a miss, you foresee your own death, and accordingly take -1 throughout the battle.​

​

Reputation: when you meet someone important (your call), roll+cool. On a hit, they’ve heard of you, and you say what they’ve heard; the MC will have them respond accordingly. On a 10+, you take +1 forward for dealing with them as well. On a miss, they’ve heard of you, but the MC will decide what they’ve heard.​

​

Bonefeel: at the beginning of the session, roll+weird. On a 10+, hold 1+1. On a 7–9, hold 1. At any time, either you or the MC can spend your hold to have you already be there, with the proper tools and knowledge, with or without any clear explanation why. If your hold was 1+1, take +1 forward now. On a miss, the MC holds 1, and can spend it to have you already be there, but somehow pinned, caught or trapped.​

​

Oftener right: when a character comes to you for advice, tell them what you honestly think the best course is. If they do it, they take +1 to any rolls they make in the doing, and you mark an experience circle.​

That's fewer than 10% of the moves in the game.

Having looked through the SRD for BitD and participated in the discussion here, it seems as though while there's still a trade, what the players are giving up in exchange for authority over the narrative is the probability of consequences. Whether those consequences are something like an Aspect being compelled, or the various and sundry ways your characters get hosed in BitD, the general point is that things don't go smooth for the characters. I guess the thought is that in exchange for giving up some narrative authority the GM is getting a lighter workload, but to me the workload doesn't seem lighter, just different. Different GMs will see that trade differently, I suspect, as will different players.

 

[Fenris-77]

To build on what Ovinomancer has said here:

The key "metaphysical" constituents in the play of a RPG are not states of affairs (such as the widget is in the hope chest). A typical RPG is a series of framing narrations (from the GM) followed by action declarations (from the players, for their PCs) and the resolution of those. So the key "metaphysical" constituents are events - such as we look in the captain's trunk and find nothing or we look in the daughter's hope chest and find the widget.

I was approaching this whole discussion with some previous threads in mind, wherein there was a lot of kvetching about illusionism and the location of widgets. Count my post as an exploration of that discussion in light of this one, as both are discussing the search more missing widgets. I agree with you about events constituting the key components of the game btw. The way that the D&D rules handle that is still very different from some other games though, and different GMing styles and play styles also change the stakes a lot.

To be clear, you are combining the action and the consequences together and calling that an event? If so I agree. That doesn't really change the fact that the two elements that compose each event are subject to changes that have a dramatic impact on the nature of the resulting event. Call it the nature of the conversation, to use some PbtA vocabulary.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, spells or other things that briefly control the characters are more along the lines of things in the world attacking them. I can make up a monster that's built around scaring people, and things like the Fear spell make that work as a challenge for the PCs. I'm pretty sure you know this, and that you already see this difference yourself, I'm just putting that out here.

Also, using a Compel on a PC in Fate is (at least sometimes, I think--I'm not pulling any books out, here) specifically called out as possibly being a character behavior thing, especially if it's a Trouble Aspect. There's similar language in Blades in the Dark about the characters not always acting in their own best interests. I'm fine if a player wants to play a character that way--I have at least one player who's leaning into his character's low-ish INT and naivete--but using those mechanics feels to me like telling the player how to play their character in the moment. Yes, in the case of Compels based on character Aspects, they've said they want those things to come up, but that's arguably less the case if it's a scene Aspect.

There are other (better, IMO) ways to engage the players' desires for what they want to see in the story. I don't need an Aspect on a character sheet to set up a situation that engages that character's personality and tendencies. If I have a character based on a turn-of-the-20th-century unionist (and I do), I can set up a workers' strike in the city they're going to and see what happens (and I did, and the other players bought in). I have no idea how that player would have written that Aspect on her character sheet, if at all (the character's personality has emerged some in play) but it doesn't seem as though it would have been any more organic than what happened, and she would have been expecting it in ways she probably wasn't.



In many of the examples in the Fate books I have, it feels exactly like forcing a line of action. To use the example that was floating around in another thread, if you have an Aspect that implies that you're a kleptomaniac, the GM might Compel that Aspect to insist that your character pocket something from their boss's office. Depending on where things are in the adventure, you might not have a Fate Point to resist the Compel, which means you have no choice but to try to argue with your GM about that course of action. Looks like GM meddling with the character, quacks like it, too.



Given that in BitD the characters get "full success"--succeed without consequence--about a third as often as they screw up at least a little, incompetence seems like something of the draw, or else the putatively interesting parts of the game wouldn't engage. I've been poking around in the SRD and I'm glad I read that before spending any money on it.

I think this is an incorrect reading. Players get to bring their best chances at rolls by tailoring their action declarayions. Recall it's always the player's choice of what stat is used. Further, players have many resources to bring to bear both before the roll to alter odds or after to mitigate complications/costs. Heck, they can outright deny a cost and force a lesser outcome.

So, the odds aren't as dire as you suggest (rolling 4 dice gives a better than 1/3 chance of success vs success with cost). Nor are the outcomes as dire. Competence is assumed in Blades and the principles of play direct away from describing failure as incompetence. As always, systems need to be analysed holistically, not taken singly mechanic by mechanic in a white room comparison.

If that's still not your cuppa, cool.

Other than the fact that the characters in BitD are broken scrabblers who are probably going to die horribly in the pursuit of petty venal wealth, there's nothing in what you've mentioned that's not possible in D&D 5E. If a character wants to do something, you can let them narrate the success, or the failure.

Again, reductionist. There are as many stories as you want, not just this one, and as many goals. The play focuses on crime, yes, because that's the genre. It can be as Peaky Blinders as you want, or as Leverage as you want.

 

[prabe]

So, the odds aren't as dire as you suggest (rolling 4 dice gives a better than 1/3 chance of success vs success with cost). Nor are the outcomes as dire. Competence is assumed in Blades and the principles of play direct away from describing failure as incompetence. As always, systems need to be analysed holistically, not taken singly mechanic by mechanic in a white room comparison.

I don't see how having a reduced frequency of unmitigated success can be described as "competence." If you're not describing failure as incompetence, then, to use an example you used previously, if the PC's dagger clatters to the cobblestones as he's running across the courtyard, how else would you describe that character's failure to secure that dagger?

Again, reductionist. There are as many stories as you want, not just this one, and as many goals. The play focuses on crime, yes, because that's the genre. It can be as Peaky Blinders as you want, or as Leverage as you want.

Yeah. Probably reductionist. I presume it works better in play than it looks--especially since I'm reading the SRD, not an actual game book. I guess I was expecting something revelatory, and I didn't find it to be so.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't see how having a reduced frequency of unmitigated success can be described as "competence." If you're not describing failure as incompetence, then, to use an example you used previously, if the PC's dagger clatters to the cobblestones as he's running across the courtyard, how else would you describe that character's failure to secure that dagger?



Yeah. Probably reductionist. I presume it works better in play than it looks--especially since I'm reading the SRD, not an actual game book. I guess I was expecting something revelatory, and I didn't find it to be so.

Just wanted to jump in because Blades is my favorite game currently, and I think I can offer some insight.

With the basic die mechanic, with success with complication on 4-5 and full success on 6, a character with only one d6 in his dice pool has a 50% chance at success. And 1d6 on a roll is generally for things the character is not particularly strong at, or has chosen not to increase his dice pool through assistance from another character, pushing himself, or accepting a devil’s bargain.

So in most cases, at worst a character has a 50% chance to succeed at their stated goal. And in most cases, better chances, and always the option to increase those chances through assists or pushing or devil’s bargains.

I think that success with complication being twice as likely as full success (4-5 versus 6) might be misleading in relation to your view of competency. On a 4-5 result, the character still achieves their stated goal. A complication cannot undo success. But it can add to the fiction in a way that makes things complicated in some way for the PC.

So a 4-5 isn’t (or shouldn’t be) the PC somehow bumbling from a full success to a partial one. The PCs are meant to be portrayed as competent, so a GM will typically try and deacribe a complication as a consequence of circumstance or severity, rather than some kind of failing on the PC’s part.

So let’s say the PC wants to leap from one rooftop, across an alley, to another rooftop. They get a 4-5. They succeed....they make the jump and the GM is bound to this. But he has to introduce a complication or setback of some kind. So maybe it’s an incredibly difficult leap, and the PC only just barely makes it, slamming into the side of the building and then scrambling up. But the impact drove the air from his lungs, so he revieves Level 1 Harm: Winded.

This is just an example. There are any number of ways a GM can take it. The success with complication result is what allows for a myriad of results to the fiction to be narrated by the GM. But he’s not supposed to narrate ineffectiveness on the part of the PC on a partial success. Hell, even on a full failure he shouldn’t do that.

Just as in D&D when a fighter misses an opponent with an attack, we’re meant to assume that it’s because the opponent managed to dodge or deflect the attack, not that the fighter tripped over his own feet and sent his sword skittering to the floor. Competency doesn’t mean you always succeed, just that you’re not portrayed as incompetent.

Also, regarding PC actions...I can’t really think of any instance in Blades where the GM infringes on PC actions in the way you’re concerned. The GM’s major input in this area is to establish the Postion (how easy/difficult) of an action and it’s Effect (the degree of the outcome). Then the player makes the roll, and the GM narrates the outcome accordingly. The player always has a good idea of the potential outcome of any roll.

I’m not sure where the idea the GM may step on player control of their character is coming from, but I don’t think that’s the case.

 

[prabe]

Also, regarding PC actions...I can’t really think of any instance in Blades where the GM infringes on PC actions in the way you’re concerned. The GM’s major input in this area is to establish the Postion (how easy/difficult) of an action and it’s Effect (the degree of the outcome). Then the player makes the roll, and the GM narrates the outcome accordingly. The player always has a good idea of the potential outcome of any roll.

I’m not sure where the idea the GM may step on player control of their character is coming from, but I don’t think that’s the case.

Yeah. I read the SRD (1.5 times-ish) and I agree that the trade-off I'm talking about doesn't (in BitD) involve the GM being able to direct PC actions the way it seems to me that Fate at least allows (I'd say encourages). From what @pemerton has said above, it doesn't necessarily sound as though the approximately 2 million PbtA games do that, either.

The fact that the PCs are rarely going to succeed without screwing something up in some way is a different thing, and that seems pretty clearly to be the case.

I'm kinda bummed, because I kinda wanted to like Blades in the Dark. It ... doesn't look like a game that's going to work for me, for a variety of reasons. Of course, I wanted to like Fate, too (and I did, almost right up until the moment when I didn't). Ah, well.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah. I read the SRD (1.5 times-ish) and I agree that the trade-off I'm talking about doesn't (in BitD) involve the GM being able to direct PC actions the way it seems to me that Fate at least allows (I'd say encourages). From what @pemerton has said above, it doesn't necessarily sound as though the approximately 2 million PbtA games do that, either.

The fact that the PCs are rarely going to succeed without screwing something up in some way is a different thing, and that seems pretty clearly to be the case.

I'm kinda bummed, because I kinda wanted to like Blades in the Dark. It ... doesn't look like a game that's going to work for me, for a variety of reasons. Of course, I wanted to like Fate, too (and I did, almost right up until the moment when I didn't). Ah, well.

It very well may not be to your liking, I get that....but I think that the way you kind of keep saying that the PCs rarely succeed "without screwing something up" is an inaccurate way to describe success with complication. That's not at all what is happening on a 4-5, which is part of what I was trying to explain above.

So not to beat a dead horse, but maybe a different example that aligns more clearly to what D&D does will work. In combat in D&D, the player declares he is attacking a target, and then makes a roll to see if he hits, and the DM compares the roll to the target's AC. The result is binary; he hits and rolls damage, or he misses and does not. You can also score a critical hit, dealing extra damage. Those are the possible outcomes. Then play moves on to the next character in initiative order, which includes the NPCs.

In Blades, the player declares he is attacking a target. The GM sets Position and Effect, and then the player decides if he wants to continue. If so, he makes an Action Roll using the relevant stat (let's say Skirmish to stab his opponent with a knife). The result isn't binary in this game; you can score a full success on a 6 (or a critical success if more than one 6 is rolled), a partial success or success with complication on 4-5, or a failure on a 1-3.

So let's say you get a 4-5. That means you succeed. Your character stabs the guy. He's most likely done for....but the GM has to add a complication of some sort. Let's say he declares that before you stab the guy, he manages to bring his own blade to bear, and slashes your arm as you drive your knife home, and you take level 2 Harm: Slashed Arm. There are ways you may resist this harm if you wanted to spend Stress, but let's just leave the example here. NPCs don't get a turn of their own, so this is largely incorporated into the narration on a Failure 1-3 or Success With Complication 4-5.

In D&D, the PC hits his target and does X damage. Then the opponent goes, and on his turn he hits the PC for Y damage. Would you describe this as the PC "screwing up" in some way?

In Blades, the same scenario results in the PC eliminating his target, but taking some kind of damage of his own in the process. I don't see how this is the PC "screwing up". He didn't fail to eliminate the opponent without getting hurt becuase he's bad at what he does. He got hurt because the guy he attacked was actually dangerous. There are other options the GM could narrate as part of the complication....it doesn't have to always be Harm. Maybe the opponent thrashes violently as he's stabbed, and he falls away, pulling the blade from the PCs hand. Now the PC has to rely on another weapon (if he has room in his inventory for one) or spend time retrieving the lost knife. Or maybe the opponent dies, but cries out, alerting other nearby opponents that something's wrong, and soon the PC will be facing more enemies.

Whatever the GM decides, it's about creating a new situation for the PC to deal with, not about the PC screwing up in some way. The situation is constantly evolving. It's more dynamic than the back and forth hit or miss, inflict some HP damage or not of D&D. I say this not as a knock on D&D...the games just do things in different ways.

I hope that helps explain what success with complication might actually mean, and how it's not some kind of failure on the part of the PC.

 

[prabe]

In Blades, the same scenario results in the PC eliminating his target, but taking some kind of damage of his own in the process. I don't see how this is the PC "screwing up". There are other options the GM could narrate as part of the complication....it doesn't have to always be Harm. Maybe the opponent thrashes violently as he's stabbed, and he falls away, pulling the blade from the PCs hand. Now the PC has to rely on another weapon (if he has room in his inventory for one) or spend time retrieving the lost knife. Or maybe the opponent dies, but cries out, alerting other nearby opponents that something's wrong.

Whatever the GM decides, it's about creating a new situation for the PC to deal with, not about the PC screwing up in some way. The situation is constantly evolving. It's more dynamic than the back and forth hit or miss, inflict some HP damage or not of D&D. I say this not as a knock on D&D...the games just do things in different ways.

I hope that helps explain what success with complication might actually mean, and how it's not some kind of failure on the part of the PC.

Yeah. I get success with complication/consequences. I guess I don't like it happening twice as often as flat success (ish--I realize bringing in multiple dice changes the odds, there).

So, your criminal-as-a-lifestyle character either overreached his competency or didn't adequately plan for something. Even your example with the opponent in the knife fight kinda bespeaks something other than full competency (slash, not stab, hold the knife so it won't come out of hour hand, go for the quick kill).

I mean, really, five out of the six results on a die mean something has gone at least somewhat wrong. That's not a really good success rate. The game looks to me like the worst parts of Leverage (which I kinda hated) and the Kobayashi Maru. Clearly, I'm not the target market for it.