Actual play examples - balance between fiction and mechanics

[Stormonu]

This seems very much an argument of "choose an action and explain how it worked in the game" vs "fit your action to the situation in a way that makes sense". I find myself preferring the latter.

And did I read correctly in the Water Wierd encounter that psionic actions were disallowed but come and get it was? That's frankly bizarre to me.

 

[Mallus]

This seems very much an argument of "choose an action and explain how it worked in the game" vs "fit your action to the situation in a way that makes sense". I find myself preferring the latter.

The question becomes: how to we determine what makes sense in a given situation? Especially when the given situation is something that is, frequently, outside our practical areas of expertise, if not altogether impossible, or absurd, or insane, or all three at once, kinda like a Neapolitan made of irrealism.

Sometimes rolling the dice and fitting some kind of barely plausible explanation to the result is the best we can do! It certainly worked back in the pre-3e era.

And did I read correctly in the Water Wierd encounter that psionic actions were disallowed but come and get it was? That's frankly bizarre to me.

Come and Get It works via metafiction and makes no attempt to explain why or how operates. It's all showing, no telling. This makes it universally applicable in a fictional construct like a game world. Note: I'm not kidding...

 

[Victim]

EDIT: Also, in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.

RC

I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

In a sort of in combat sense, think of 3e giants. They have pretty good stuff in general, especially in melee combat (and doubly so if specced to use combat maneuvers like Disarm or Sunder), and then really awful Will saves. Even if your wizard doesn't emphasize enchantments - let's say we're talking about an evoker - using Will based spells (Confusion, Slow, etc) is still the way to go even if your normal Spell Focuses don't apply. What the player/character would prefer to do; what they've chosen to be good at doesn't really matter, because taking advantage of giant's weakness provides such an overwhelming advantage.

Similarly, if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

When one choice is obviously superior, going for it is a pretty trivial decision.

 

[pemerton]

Similarly, if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values.

I agree with this. The player of the paladin actually said, after the bear had been pacified, "I feel really good about not having killed that bear." (He was the player who, in the one previous bear encounter in the campaign, had also initiated non-violent means then.)

 

[pemerton]

This seems very much an argument of "choose an action and explain how it worked in the game" vs "fit your action to the situation in a way that makes sense". I find myself preferring the latter.

I don't think this is quite fair. I've described in some detail the way in which the players are trying to make sense of their situation, and have their PCs respond to that situation in ways that make sense.

And did I read correctly in the Water Wierd encounter that psionic actions were disallowed but come and get it was? That's frankly bizarre to me.

As Mallus said, and as I explained in the OP, Come and Get It is like a "fate point". It's a metagame play. By playing it, the player of the fighter gets to determine that on this occasion, for this action, his poise and response to the movement on the battlefield is not in question. In the context of the actual encounter, it meant that there was no question that, when the water surged up, he was able to perfectly time his response of trying to push the stones into the holes at the base of the pool.

As a side comment on 4e: it's often said that all the classes have same-ish powers. Leaving aside the fact that, from the tactical point of view, there's a big difference even beteen wizard and sorcerer powers, let alone wizard and archer-ranger powers, this encounter drove home another point of difference. Magic-using classes don't have many metagame powers. Fighters have quite a few. That's a real difference, with implications for play (as this encounter showed).

 

[Krensky]

Here we see that, while mechanics are important, engagment with the fiction is permeating the whole episode, and shaping the way that mechanical resources are deployed and that deployment adjudicated. In particular, it was in virtue of the fictional situation that the wizard player needed to find a mechanical means of using Nature at range, and that the sorcerer player needed to find a mechanical means of using Intimidate while backing away.

Odd. I see a purely gamist construct from start to finish with the mechanics defining the fiction. You choose the version of the bear based on what would make for a good game encounter, not what made sense in the context of the world or what would generate an interesting story or plot beat. Then when the players decided to deal with the bear without attacking it, you converted it from one mini-game (combat) to another (the skill challenge), while retaining the same (more or less) level of risk-reward. Then when the players declared their actions, you and they bargained back and forth to find some fictional cover for allowing their mechanical actions to have the desired effect regardless of the realism or the dramatic concerns of the game or the story conventions it's trying the emulate. The fiction is being manipulated to fit the mechanics used.

The water weird

The PCs were investigating a hot spring inside a temple bathhouse, and were attacked by a water weird. I had already decided, in my prep notes, to resolve this as a complexity 2 skill challenge ie 6 successes before 3 failures.

Wait, why does the temple bathhouse have a monster in the hotspring and why is it attacking the PCs? Has the temple been abandoned and it's moved in by chance? Or is it some sort of guardian there to protect the holy spring? Or is it there because you want to run a encounter and give a chunk of XP out? What's the goal of the scene for the player characters?

The PCs quicly discovered that psychic/Will attacks had no effect - the weird was animated water, with no discernible mind or body. So they decided to (i) try and destroy/move the water, using radiant and thunder attacks, and (ii) to try and plug the spring, by knocking stones down into it and using the thunder attacks to drive them home. (In my prep notes I'd expected the PCs to try and expunge the spirit, and had made some notes on how Religion and Arcana checks might play out. The idea of plugging the spring instead came as a surprise to me.)

None of this makes sense beyond a game construct. It's immunities seem somewhat arbitrary, and allowing holy power (if I understand radiant right) and noise (unless thunder means electricity, which also doesn't make much sense) to effect the water seems equally arbitrary. Although your comment about expunging it with a Religion check implies it was some sort of demonic possession, so maybe radiant makes sense. That plugging the spring would work is hard to value, since you haven't explained why plugging the spring would have an effect.

A question to other GMs - especially those who don't like structured non-combat resolution (whether 4e skill challenges, HeroWars/Quest extended contests, etc): How would you adjudicate an attempt by your party to defeat a water weird by plugging the spring at the bottom of the pool containing it?

Well, I'm not clear from your description why plugging the spring would stop the water weird. It's also depends on the point of the scene. For simplicity's sake, I'll assume the NPC is just there in the bathhouse of an abandoned temple as a risk of exploration. Similarly, I'll assume the players have gotten a Hint (capitalized for a reason, it's a mechanic in my game of choice) from me about how to overcome the NPC and haven't just entered 'F-it mode' and bought a Flash-Forward.

From there, it depends on the player's actions. If the player asks if there are suitable rocks to block the spring, without spending Action Dice to declare said rocks exist, I'd decide if there are any lying around via a simple die roll, a roll on the Fate Chart (from the Mythic Game Master Emulator), or my whim. I'm currently a fan of the Fate Chart for this though.

If there are rocks, I'd make a quick assessment of how the fight's going and how many rounds I want it to take based in the needs of the scene and how much of a pounding the PCs are taking. A quick check about it's weight might come up to see if it's lift-able or has to be pushed, or I might decide it based on dramatic priorities for the scene and what feels more interesting. The map and description of the scenery would probably strongly inform my choice of location. From there, I know the PCs ability to shift rocks and they can make Athletics checks to increase their effective strength for doing so. If they're just looking to knock it over (again, it's hard to say without looking at the map or being in the moment) I'd either just have them push it 5 ft or so, or figure out how hard a challenge it is and grab the Sliding DC for that difficulty and call for an Athletics check from whoever wanted to try. This would most likely fall to a strong PC, since the spellcasters really only have Gust of Wind to shift it and casting Brawn on the strong man would probably be more effective.

If there aren't rocks and the PC wants to make some, I have rules for damaging scenery, then see above.

As for reward, well assuming the NPC is just there and they didn't achieve any goals beyond defeating the elemental, they get the Elemental's XP (which they would have gotten by any means they rendered it hors de combat or even by talking to it and coming to some accord other then surrendering or fleeing). Treasure depends on too many factors, but just playing vanilla they don't get any either way since Elementals don't have treasure.

 

[Nagol]

A question to other GMs - especially those who don't like structured non-combat resolution (whether 4e skill challenges, HeroWars/Quest extended contests, etc): How would you adjudicate an attempt by your party to defeat a water weird by plugging the spring at the bottom of the pool containing it?

That would strongly depend on the life support required by the water weird.

In all likelihood, attempting to plug the hole in the bottom of the pool would have limited effect on the weird -- the pool intake would stop so the water level would drain off until it hits equilibrium -- probably not much below where the level is normally because that's the natural drain-off point anyway. It may restrict its reach and allow passage around the pool without further combat.

It's unlikely restricting the supply of new water would kill or otherwise seriously impede the weird otherwise.

Now if there is a particular reason the weird required direct access to the intake (for example, the weird is a manifestation of something deeper in the water supply) then the weird would cease upon the blockage.

How to adjudicate the blockage? It depends on the water flow. For the case described where the water flow was shifting in waves, probably either Dex or Wis check to catch the flow at an ebb (giving +5 to the Str roll following) and a Str check (assigned probably somewhere DC 12 to 20 depending on water pressure determined for the flow) to ram something to block the intake -- all while figting off the weird's drowning attempts, of course.

 

[pemerton]

Wait, why does the temple bathhouse have a monster in the hotspring and why is it attacking the PCs? Has the temple been abandoned and it's moved in by chance?

The temple is in ruins. The water weird is an elemental haunting.

I see a purely gamist construct from start to finish with the mechanics defining the fiction. You choose the version of the bear based on what would make for a good game encounter, not what made sense in the context of the world or what would generate an interesting story or plot beat.

Tell me more about the difference between "a good game encounter" and "an interesting story or plot beat".

If there are rocks, I'd make a quick assessment of how the fight's going and how many rounds I want it to take based in the needs of the scene and how much of a pounding the PCs are taking.

What is the difference between "a gamist construct" and making a judgement about "the needs of the scene"?

 

[pemerton]

That would strongly depend on the life support required by the water weird.

<snip>

It's unlikely restricting the supply of new water would kill or otherwise seriously impede the weird otherwise.

Fair enough.

In my game I'd described the bath as being fed by a hot spring. I described the weird as surging out of the bath and trying to drag the PCs into the bath and drown them. They came up with the idea of blocking the spring. It seemed reasonable to me (I didn't have very detailed notes on the metaphysical nature of the weird) and let them run with it.

How to adjudicate the blockage? It depends on the water flow. For the case described where the water flow was shifting in waves, probably either Dex or Wis check to catch the flow at an ebb (giving +5 to the Str roll following) and a Str check (assigned probably somewhere DC 12 to 20 depending on water pressure determined for the flow) to ram something to block the intake -- all while figting off the weird's drowning attempts, of course.

I'm not sure yet if this is radically different from a skill challenge.

Would you set the DCs higher or lower depending on the level of the party (perhaps reasoning that the water weirds in the more exotic locations are tougher)?

You've said two (or three) checks - DEX &/or WIS, and STR. Are there retries? Unlimited retries? How do you work out what sort of failure rules out any retries? And what would be the ingame story to explain that?

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I'm not sure yet if this is radically different from a skill challenge.

Would you set the DCs higher or lower depending on the level of the party (perhaps reasoning that the water weirds in the more exotic locations are tougher)?

No. The DCs would be the DC regardless of who was present and tried. If the location were more exotic then that location may have a higher or lower DC, but nothing with relation to the characters present.

You've said two (or three) checks - DEX &/or WIS, and STR. Are there retries? Unlimited retries? How do you work out what sort of failure rules out any retries? And what would be the ingame story to explain that?

I'd give one try per round for as long as the character was able to hold position. A try would be either a Dex or Wis check (player choice -- intuition vs. reaction time) followed by the Str check. The combination would be a standard action. Depending on the positioning, probably only one character could take position each round.

The only failure is the weird is successful in distracting the PC either through drowning him or otherwise convincing him to stop. If the fight took a very long time (20+ rounds, shorter if the water was deemed to be very hot) I'd probably check to see what sort of heat protection the character had running and start applying penalties for the environment.