A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

I think you've hit on it about the logical bit. It's also likely deemed okay because it builds on something already established by the GM, and still gets filtered through the GM's judgment; I don't know if a GM in such a game would not consider it beyond their ability to render a successful roll to forage effectively a failure by evoking the notes. So it might play out like this:

Player: Ranger is going to forage for food so that we don't starve out here.
GM: Okay, go ahead and roll your Wilderness skill.

GM here should have thrown in something - even just a half-sarcastic "Good luck with that" - to indicate that foraging at best would be very difficult and more likely would be wasted time for the Ranger. Or, instead of calling for the roll she could just say "It's the Desolate Plains, man. There's nothing out here."

Player: Wow, I rolled a 27!
GM: Very nice! You're able to determine with certainty that there is nothing to forage in this area. The flora is all poisonous, so you know not to eat that! And there is an absence of wildlife that is eerily unsettling.

Having called for the roll and with the player's die producing a stupendous result, the GM here could maybe throw the PC a bone by giving something like "You got lucky - in a sheltered cleft you found one edible plant, just enough for a meal for one person; and it's probably the only one of those plants for many miles around. Do you really want to uproot it?" (while also mentioning the bits about the poisonous stuff and the lack of wildlife)

Player: But I rolled a 27!?!
GM: Yeah, but there is nothing here to find; it says so in my description of the Desolate Plains. I mean....they're desolate! You were able to determine that the flora would be dangerous, so at least you don't poison yourselves.

Or something similar. Such an action still gets filtered by the GM and his notes or the module or whatever. And although some folks would say "well that's not how the GM should handle it" there are others who would say "well of course....it's the Desolate Plains, and it was determined ahead of time there was nothing safe to eat there."

And I think that a big part of the problem is that huge variance between results, both of which could be seen as supported by the rules.

Part of this, I think, hinges upon how Actions are viewed. I imagine that the default assumption when a character attempts an Action roll of some kind.....like a Forage check in this example.....most or many folks view the success/fail result to be a result of the character's performance, rather than a property of the fictional world. So if Ranger fails his roll, he has failed to find food. Which seems pretty absurd, except perhaps in the most extreme locations.

Other folks would see such a failed result and decide that it indicates there is no food to be found. So it's not so much that the Ranger failed at the most basic functions of his class, but rather that there wasn't a way for him to succeed in the fiction. This is more about the Action roll helping to shape the fictional world rather than just the character. And in many cases, I think this is preferable; I know I'd rather think of it as food is impossible to find than that my Ranger is inept.

That distinction can play a big part in this kind of thing, too, which I think can go unnoticed.

Good points.

It also falls under the heading of even if something is impossible in the fiction, players/PCs should still be allowed to try it anyway.

 

[pemerton]

GM here should have thrown in something - even just a half-sarcastic "Good luck with that" - to indicate that foraging at best would be very difficult and more likely would be wasted time for the Ranger.

Isn't that metagaming? Which you're against?

OK - first you complain about there being no way to read the NPC's personality and-or motives, and then you complain again when an obvious means of telegraphing them is brought up. Which half of the road do you want?

Neither. That's my whole point.

The second was "external" to the immediate situation but pretty important at the table: the player (clearly) didn't want Lady Askol to decide that von Jerrel must be deported back to Ashar. And I didn't want that either! So there was no point in calling for a check that would result in such a possibility.

Why not? I mean, if there's a chance that would happen (and there's certainly stakes involved), doesn't internal fiction consistency demand such a check even though the result might not be what anyone wants?

The check isn't part of the fiction. The check is an event in the real world used to settle the content of the fiction when it is uncertain or the subject of contest at the table.

There is no fictional consistency in Lady Askol believing von Jerrel's lie. That was clearly what the player wanted to have happen. It suited me too! So there was no contest at the table. Hence no need for any sort of check.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why not? I mean, if there's a chance that would happen (and there's certainly stakes involved), doesn't internal fiction consistency demand such a check even though the result might not be what anyone wants?

To me, not calling for a check just because there's the potential for an undesirable result hews rather close to fudging a damage roll so as not to kill off a PC that both its player and the GM are fond of.

I don't follow this at all. What do you mean by "there is a chance this might happen"? This is a FICTION, what happens is what the participants in making the fiction SAY happens. While I would agree that a roll in combat is normally agreed upon to be the way to resolve fights, this is not nearly true otherwise. In fact we can demonstrate that by the simplest reductio. You cannot possibly know what all the possibilities in a 'realistic' world would be. No human being could possibly claim to that believably. So there is only that which you choose to put into the fiction (or roll for) and that which you don't (either because of choice or out of sheer ignorance or lack of capacity to imagine it as a possibility).

So there cannot possibly be any principle "always roll for everything that is possible." It is simply unimplementable, even in a practical "roll for some things" version. Thus to accuse @pemerton of 'fudging' here is really kind of preposterous. His avowed reason for not rolling may be related to where the participants are aiming the narrative, but that is at most just him acknowledging that some option wasn't interesting to anyone at the table. There are probably dozens of other options we could have come up with at that moment that nobody even THOUGHT to dice for. Is the result somehow corrupt because of that? Of course not.

 

[pemerton]

Disagree?

Not in any deep way. Maybe not even in any superficial way.

I think the situation authority that comes with 4e is similar to the "implicit suggestion" authority over setting that comes up when the player of the high-level paladin starts speculating about finding a Holy Avenger and so the GM decides to put one in the next adventure. It's well short of shared control over the details of framing.

I think the differences that you point to between Streetwise in 4e and Gather Information in 3E go to the heart of system architecture:

4e has a clear resolution framework which allows Setting authority as an aspect of that (eg it's taken for granted that the use of Streetwise in a skill challenge might involve the player referring to contacts and local dives and the like which haven't been previously established in the shared fiction; this is reinforced by the Slow Pursuit Streetwise-based skill power);

3E does not, so it presents a skill that only makes sense if we assume some player authority over setting (and if the "no obvious reason" clause is treated as a credibility check) but that in practice, given the lack of clear structure and principle and the likely folding of the "no obvious reason" clause into broader references to "rule zero" (which itself gets used quite differently from how I first read it in the 3E PHB), is apt to be heavily GM gated and manipulated in all sorts of ways.

 

[Campbell]

I am not sure I like distinguishing between agency over setting and agency over situation. In my view setting is subsumed by situation.

 

[pemerton]

PCs of faith
I've just come back home from a run. As I was running past a glass building and admiring my middle-aged physique I was moved to reflect on differences and the connections between me and Thurgon, Last Knight of the Iron Tower (my Burning Wheel PC).

Thurgon has the Faithful trait. As a result he has a Faith attribute that has a rating, just the same as his ability scores. Consistent with the rules of the game, he also has a Belief that expresses his Faith: The Lord of Battle will lead me to glory.

There are different ways to think about knights of holy orders. My main influences are actual history, where (eg) some Crusaders clearly had strong beliefs about the possibility and reality of providential revelations and happenings; and the film Excalibur, which is my favourite version of the Arthur stories.

Thurgon believes in providence. The Lord of Battle will lead him to glory is one expression of that overarching understanding of the world. It would be hugely disruptive to the immersion in the play of this character for all the events that happen in the fiction - like finding tooked-for towers, or meeting looked-for brothers - to be dictated by an external force (eg mere random rolls; dispassionate GM worldbuilding) that has no connection to the inner life, struggles and convictions of the faithful.

This is one way in which I think classic D&D, though it is replete with religious tropes, is very poor at actually capturing some important interpretations and understandings of what those tropes really mean.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Not in any deep way. Maybe not even in any superficial way.

I think the situation authority that comes with 4e is similar to the "implicit suggestion" authority over setting that comes up when the player of the high-level paladin starts speculating about finding a Holy Avenger and so the GM decides to put one in the next adventure. It's well short of shared control over the details of framing.

I think the differences that you point to between Streetwise in 4e and Gather Information in 3E go to the heart of system architecture:

4e has a clear resolution framework which allows Setting authority as an aspect of that (eg it's taken for granted that the use of Streetwise in a skill challenge might involve the player referring to contacts and local dives and the like which haven't been previously established in the shared fiction; this is reinforced by the Slow Pursuit Streetwise-based skill power);

3E does not, so it presents a skill that only makes sense if we assume some player authority over setting (and if the "no obvious reason" clause is treated as a credibility check) but that in practice, given the lack of clear structure and principle and the likely folding of the "no obvious reason" clause into broader references to "rule zero" (which itself gets used quite differently from how I first read it in the 3E PHB), is apt to be heavily GM gated and manipulated in all sorts of ways.

I see 4e through the lens of how we have been playing, in which you really don't do 'checks' outside of 'challenges', and the players specify the intent of their actions when they take a 'move' in a challenge. So, if you used Streetwise (for whatever purpose) you'd be defining what it was supposed to accomplish in terms of changing the state of the fiction. "I want to spread a rumor about Fat Joe that will induce him to come to me for protection." You may also need to clarify what exactly action you are taking in more concrete terms, but maybe not. Anyway, success is going to produce the sort of fiction you asked for, and either you or the GM are going to have to supply whatever the explanation is in order to narrate it (I suppose since in my example a lot of whatever happens is kind of 'offscreen' between NPCs it might not be a great example).

In any case, there's also the overall goal that is in mind, whatever winning or losing the challenge leads to. This is almost always determined by the players, maybe constrained by fictional position to a degree, but given how we have added "and change the fictional situation by spending..." kinds of rules, that's pretty negotiable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is one way in which I think classic D&D, though it is replete with religious tropes, is very poor at actually capturing some important interpretations and understandings of what those tropes really mean.

It is certainly poor at producing them as actual traits or principles of the world the PC inhabits. I guess the reprise is "well, believe in something that I (the DM) made to be true about the world!" lol. This is kind of a capsule of how the two (to simplify things to two viewpoints) viewpoints are different. One allows for all sorts of these kinds of elaborations, and invites them. This opens up a lot of this 'internalization', but the other doesn't. Heck, BW in this case would be happy to let us posit that the PC inhabits a world WHICH CONFORMS TO his beliefs, because of those beliefs! I guess you could do that in any game, but it is pretty natural in this case.

 

[Manbearcat]

Not in any deep way. Maybe not even in any superficial way.

I think the situation authority that comes with 4e is similar to the "implicit suggestion" authority over setting that comes up when the player of the high-level paladin starts speculating about finding a Holy Avenger and so the GM decides to put one in the next adventure. It's well short of shared control over the details of framing.

I think the differences that you point to between Streetwise in 4e and Gather Information in 3E go to the heart of system architecture:

4e has a clear resolution framework which allows Setting authority as an aspect of that (eg it's taken for granted that the use of Streetwise in a skill challenge might involve the player referring to contacts and local dives and the like which haven't been previously established in the shared fiction; this is reinforced by the Slow Pursuit Streetwise-based skill power);

3E does not, so it presents a skill that only makes sense if we assume some player authority over setting (and if the "no obvious reason" clause is treated as a credibility check) but that in practice, given the lack of clear structure and principle and the likely folding of the "no obvious reason" clause into broader references to "rule zero" (which itself gets used quite differently from how I first read it in the 3E PHB), is apt to be heavily GM gated and manipulated in all sorts of ways.

That is exactly what I had in mind.

Going back to your first paragraph, there is definitely that aspect of 4e yielding Situation and/or Setting Authority. I can think of a few others though (and let me know what you think):

1) The combination of Quests + baked-in character thematics ensure downstream effects. If you're a Sohei Themed Monk w/ the Quest "I will recover the Phase Spider Silk Sash of my order and lay low the Yokai who brought ruin to it", the game will entail (a) what you're describing above (a waist item that lets the Monk teleport or phase), (b) a revenge and recovery arc that puts a specific form of supernatural as the antagonism to the PC's protagonism.

2) The "say yes" genre logic, broad descriptor Skills & Keywords, codified and player-facing nature of 4e ensures the following:

* If the above (1) is true and...

* I'm in a parley w/ a local lord that is hostile to me without cause and...

* We're in a Complexity 2 Skill Challenge and we're at Success 5 and...

* I construe the situation as this Lord is either (a) possessed by a Yokai or (b) an actual Yokai but (c) regardless, involved in the conspiracy against my temple in some way...if I use an Arcana or Religion check (possibly backed by a key-worded power to give me a bonus) to adjure or reveal the possession/guise or if I sufficiently challenge the "Yokai-as-Lord" w/ Intimidate (yielding a success regardless of Arcana/Religion/Intimidate), then...

* The Skill Challenge will come to a close, my intent/goal in the challenge will be realized and now we're dealing with an unmasked Yokai, the shock or exposure of its court (perhaps they knew?), and the unrest that will ensue in this Prefecture as a result.

That is pretty significant Setting Authority and Situation Authority and a 4e GM is encouraged to say yes here (and must oblige the success of the Skill Challenge).

---

This is the kind of thing that many GMs in this thread (and a huge array of ENWorld GMs outside of it) balked hard at (and that ingratiated 4e to you and I and some others in this thread).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is exactly what I had in mind.

Going back to your first paragraph, there is definitely that aspect of 4e yielding Situation and/or Setting Authority. I can think of a few others though (and let me know what you think):

1) The combination of Quests + baked-in character thematics ensure downstream effects. If you're a Sohei Themed Monk w/ the Quest "I will recover the Phase Spider Silk Sash of my order and lay low the Yokai who brought ruin to it", the game will entail (a) what you're describing above (a waist item that lets the Monk teleport or phase), (b) a revenge and recovery arc that puts a specific form of supernatural as the antagonism to the PC's protagonism.

2) The "say yes" genre logic, broad descriptor Skills & Keywords, codified and player-facing nature of 4e ensures the following:

* If the above (1) is true and...

* I'm in a parley w/ a local lord that is hostile to me without cause and...

* We're in a Complexity 2 Skill Challenge and we're at Success 5 and...

* I construe the situation as this Lord is either (a) possessed by a Yokai or (b) an actual Yokai but (c) regardless, involved in the conspiracy against my temple in some way...if I use an Arcana or Religion check (possibly backed by a key-worded power to give me a bonus) to adjure or reveal the possession/guise or if I sufficiently challenge the "Yokai-as-Lord" w/ Intimidate (yielding a success regardless of Arcana/Religion/Intimidate), then...

* The Skill Challenge will come to a close, my intent/goal in the challenge will be realized and now we're dealing with an unmasked Yokai, the shock or exposure of its court (perhaps they knew?), and the unrest that will ensue in this Prefecture as a result.

That is pretty significant Setting Authority and Situation Authority and a 4e GM is encouraged to say yes here (and must oblige the success of the Skill Challenge).

---

This is the kind of thing that many GMs in this thread (and a huge array of ENWorld GMs outside of it) balked hard at (and that ingratiated 4e to you and I and some others in this thread).

I really liked the way all the thematics were integrated into your character so easily. You had class, feats, theme, PP, ED, even just power selections could feed into it, not to mention items. This worked pretty well, though (as I have said a few times before) we created a variation on the advancement technique. So PCs would quest for the gear they wanted, and what elements they ended up with would arise out of the story (So, if you were level 10 and there was a narrative situation which suggested a PP, then you'd get that, sort of the "bit by the spider" kind of narrative). Level advancement was just 'yep, you're a paragon now, you must be level 11'.