D&D 4E 4E: DM-proofing the game

[king_ghidorah]

There is also such a thing as "social tactics", and I think that's what a good social encounter system is about. In 3rd edition, by RAW all you needed was a Diplomacy Check. The DM was supposed to give some modifiers to the check dependend on circumstance, but that was all just guesstimating and there are no real guidelines behind it.

A social encounter should probably involve "tactical" aspects like:
- Do I try to bluff, intimidate or "diplomance" my way in? (Or even think about which skill is appropriate at each stage of a social encounter?)
- Who do I "manipulate" first so I can get to the one harder/more important to convince?
- Which member of the group is best suited to deal with which NPC part of the encounter?
- What do I offer to make the other guys more positive to my side (money? help? Not killing him?)
- What piece of information or which past event can I use to my advantage? ("We rescued the princess dog, after all!" "It would be very unfortunate if people where lead to believe that you had an affair, just because they learned that you visited her two times a week at night and didn't leave before dawn...")

I don't know if the 4E system will really address such things - nobody besides the designers and playtesters have seen it yet. Maybe their system works entirely different (and it might suck for it, or be great) But I definitely see possibilities to making a social encounter just as tactical as a combat encounter is.

The good thing about social encounter systems is that it lets players play characters with a very different level of social skill than they have. Thus, if the player wants to play a witty con-artist, but isn't so good at deception, that can actually be played out in-game.

The bad thing is that most social encounter systems stink. They take the game out of a narrative moment of role-play and into a rules-based system that mimics a skirmish game. This doesn't involve other characters, is boring to watch, and undermines any sense of immersion in the game world. Making a system that is interesting and involving to everyone at the table and will still include narrative elements and direct role-play involvement would be a challenge (to say the least.)

 

[Reynard]

You are creating a problem where none exists because:

1) Quest cards have no mechanical aspect to them. They are just notes to keep the party on track.

and

2) because of this Quest cards don't do what you say they do.

I think you are missing an important part of the discussion: while the "quest card" is meaningless because the idea of the "card" is just a suggestion,a note taking technique, the "quest mechanic" is very specific. The mechanic represents predetermined awards -- particularly an XP award -- for completing a particular objective (the "quest"). It says it right there in the article -- even breaking down what different "levels" of quests would be worth, XP wise. I contend that predetermining this award is problematic because what the PCs do in achieving the stated goal is more important than achieving the goal itself. In the best case scenario, where the DM in not expected to tranmit the reward for the quest to the players and/or has perfect freedom to change the rward, the mechanic is useless. In the worst cse scenario, where the XP reward is transmitted to the players and/or the DM is not supposed to alter it, the mechanic becomes a limitation on the DM's ability to judge PC actions in the campaign and/or ammunition for certain kinds of players (the same kinds that would bean count 3E characters' wealth and then complain they are short per the RAW).

I hope that helps clarify my position on the subject a little.

 

[apoptosis]

Weird that I am looking forward to 4E based on the fact that it will EASIER to do non-combat social encounters than in 3.x. I find the SWSE method (which the Pit Fiend all but confirms) of dealing with skills much more conducive to social encounters than the 3.5 method.

In 4E, if I want to run a social encounter, I know for a fact that there is a range of basic competency among the players characters and I can set encounters that play on this whereas I'm not the only DM that has been frustrated to realize that nobody in the party at 10th level has any skills in Diplomacy.

Here, it is not even the fault of the players or DM as you can't fault players for not investing skill points in a skill that hasn't been used in 2 years of gaming and the DM can't as easily insure that Skill X will be used in an adventure.

I am not sure it will be easier but it seems from early information that it will have a social challenge resolution system that is more robust (which is a good thing) compared to earlier versions.

But it is not a game I would choose if social challenges and encounters were the bulk of play, that would be using a screwdriver in place of a hammer to pound a nail. It works, just not the best choice.

Social challenges are such a volatile subject. When people talk about rules for roleplaying what they really mean is rules for social situations; though there are rules that can really enhance roleplaying as well..but that is another topic.

The strange behavior I notice though is that people want social combat so that they can say sway an NPC, but get very upset if they think that the NPC could use social combat to sway them. I think that you CANNOT have social challenge resolution unless the PCs can also be negatively impacted by it just like the NPCs can.

If you are not going to have it work both ways then social challenge resolution is pretty pointless, it would be like have physical combat but the monsters cant do anything to you.

Bascially having social resolution systems do require players to think differently about how they play their characters. Given the more wide-open results that can happen with social resolution, in general I believe stake setting works better than task resolution for social combat but i am pretty sure that 4E will hang on to task resolution for social encounters, which is a shame.

Edit.. you could have a stake setting system and a granularized system (say BDtP from TSOY or Duel of Wits from BW) which works very well.

 

[apoptosis]

I don't think any system works worse in a high-trust environment.

ummm...YES i agree wholeheartedly....

But some systems work much worse in a low-trust environment.

 

[king_ghidorah]

I think you are missing an important part of the discussion: while the "quest card" is meaningless because the idea of the "card" is just a suggestion,a note taking technique, the "quest mechanic" is very specific. The mechanic represents predetermined awards -- particularly an XP award -- for completing a particular objective (the "quest"). It says it right there in the article -- even breaking down what different "levels" of quests would be worth, XP wise. I contend that predetermining this award is problematic because what the PCs do in achieving the stated goal is more important than achieving the goal itself. In the best case scenario, where the DM in not expected to tranmit the reward for the quest to the players and/or has perfect freedom to change the rward, the mechanic is useless. In the worst cse scenario, where the XP reward is transmitted to the players and/or the DM is not supposed to alter it, the mechanic becomes a limitation on the DM's ability to judge PC actions in the campaign and/or ammunition for certain kinds of players (the same kinds that would bean count 3E characters' wealth and then complain they are short per the RAW).

I hope that helps clarify my position on the subject a little.

I get the concern about the XP award. I have addressed this more than once. The problem with what you are saying that is that the XP reward is not part of the cards. That's what I referred when you were conflating two things -- the XP award is determined by DM, but not listed on the card. I have even quoted to show what is included on the cards, the characters talk to the baron, negotiate a reward with the baron, and the quest card includes the quest and the agreed-upon award. Not the metagame award, the agreed-upon one. That's what is actually stated in the article.

One of the suggestions in the 4th Edition Dungeon Master's Guide is to give players a visual, tactile representation of a quest as soon as they begin it. At the start of the adventure, after the baron has briefed the characters on their mission and been bullied into paying them more than he intended, you can hand the players an index card spelling out the details of the quest -- including the agreed-upon reward. In the middle of the adventure, when the characters find a key with a ruby set in its bow, you can hand them a card, telling them that finding the matching lock is a quest.​

Your interpretation is not supported by the text.

In short, you are worrying about something that isn't actually in the article.

What you are doing is conflating this with the first half of the article that explains the importance of quests, and how there is a system for giving experience for quests. Granted, the transition to the second half of an article that has almst nothing to do with the first makes this possible (James Wyatt didn't really make a good transition there. In a print magazine, this should have been a sidebar.) But the two are written as very separate things. First half of the article: "Quests are the bread and butter of the game. Here's how you will be able to give XP for questsion." Last half "and speaking of quests, here's this really cool suggestion from the DMG!" Unrelated. Not the same.

That's what I'm saying. Just so we understand each other and don't talk past each other.

So your concern about Quest Cards isn't a good argument about DM power since the article that discusses them doesn't say diddly about XP awards on the cards.

 

[pemerton]

Something amusing about the whole quest system argument is that in the original thread, it was criticized by some as giving the DM too much power to railroad the party. Now we are seeing it brought up again, but as a way to marginalize the DM.

Well perhaps the answer is a bit of both. It lets the GM determine the plot direction (unless players can set quests, directly or perhaps indirectly by specifiying character goals). But, as Reynard notes, it locks the GM in to a certain plot, and the reward of XPs for resolving that plot.

Again, you are not reading the quests article very well.

<snip>

Quests can be major or minor​

The article does not suggest that this information be put on the quest card.

I think the point is that the GM must commit to the availability of story/goal XP in advance. This is a significant change to D&D's handling of this issue.

 

[Reynard]

That's what I'm saying. Just so we understand each other and don't talk past each other.

So your concern about Quest Cards isn't a good argument about DM power since the article that discusses them doesn't say diddly about XP awards on the cards.

Noted and appreciated.

But the question still remains as to what the purpose of the Quest mechanic is, if it isn't intended to be either transmitted to the PCs or adhered to (the XP reward, I mean).

It may simply be an issue of language: Quest is an implicitely more specific term than "story award". The article seems to suggest that the Quest mechanic is an evolution of "story awards" which suggests that it is more robust and involved than simply stating XP above and beyond that gained from overcoming challenges, defeating foes and such like. Perhaps that is not the case and it is just a euphamism for "story" award and is as easily ignored.

 

[pemerton]

Please present your argument that in 4e the DM will have more constraints than the DM in 3.5e. I think it is trivially false based on the information we have received to date.

I think that all the examples you give can be summarised as "the GM's freedom to introduce game elements". I don't disupte what you are saying in this respect. The features of the system that change the GM's role are all the other things I have pointed to:

*the abolition of mechanical alignment removes the rules that (in earlier editions) allowed the GM to impose his/her moral vision on the game unilaterally;

*tighter action resolution rules reduce the role of the GM in adjudicating the details of play (I think this is Reynard's main concern) - social challenge rules, in particular, will mean that the GM is no longer solely in charge of determining the reaction of NPCs and monstes;

*the PoL setting (sidebar, W&M p 20) gives the players a role in determining the incidence of adversity, something which earlier editions reserved to the GM;

*APs and Second Wind give the players a much greater role in determining the unfolding of play then previous editions have given them, by allowing players to change the implications for an encounter of the die rolls made for success and damage - with these mechanics in play, the GM couldn't just, by fiat, set up the transition from A3 to A4 (in which the PCs fall unconscious and wake up stripped of their gear).

Plus there are the quest rules and the encounter and reward balancing rules which have already been discussed.

I would summarise it this way: D&D (especially AD&D) has always fostered an approach to play in which the GM is the sole determinant of the gameworld, of the incidence of adversity, of what counts as success or failure for the PCs in the gameworld, etc. 4e seems to me to pretty clearly be changing this (continuing in the direction that 3E started).

 

[Counterspin]

Even if we're to accept your argument, I don't see how it's a big deal. Given that statistically the GM is just as likely to be untrustworthy as the players, splitting up the power seems to be the ideal state, since it moves as much power as possible from the GM, who has the largest single person impact on the game, and spreads it across numerous players, who are no more likely to be irresponsible than the GM.

 

[apoptosis]

Even if we're to accept your argument, I don't see how it's a big deal. Given that statistically the GM is just as likely to be untrustworthy as the players, splitting up the power seems to be the ideal state, since it moves as much power as possible from the GM, who has the largest single person impact on the game, and spreads it across numerous players, who are no more likely to be irresponsible than the GM.

Actuallly Peryton (sorry u will always be the crazy flying half deer thing to me now) i dont think thinks it is a problem.

My feeling is that he thinks that giving narrative control to the players is a good thing.

Reynard is the one who doesnt like it so much.

Now, i could be very wrong about who you directed your post to, if so..then i apologize ahead of time.