Actual play examples - balance between fiction and mechanics

[Raven Crowking]

I'd give you XP, but I can' t yet.

In the same boat re The Shaman; that was a great post!

 

[pemerton]

Another way to put it is that you appear to be allowing you players to take an action and then explain how that action was possible in the situation -actions aren't denied, they are simply expained away or glossed over.

I don't see the "explaining away" or the "glossing over".

A sorcerer backs away while wreathing himself and his implements (staff and dagger) in lightning - thereby intimidating a bear. Where is the explaining away or glossing over?

A fighter jumps into the animated, surging pond, waits for the water to surge up, and then drives the stones into the spring, blocking the flow of water into the bond. Again, where is the explaining away?

Raven and I seem to prefer a stand of where the situation dictates what is possible and not - there are simply some actions that won't work (unless the player can convincingly explain how it would).

Again, I don't see the difference from what I've described.

In my OP, I explained how the sorcerer wanted to back away and intimidate. I asked how he was achieving this (given that backing away would normally not be very intimidating). He explained how. This looks to me exactly like "some cations won't work unless the player can convincingly explain how it would".

Your is a permissive approach, the other is a restrictive approach.

To me, this all seems to turn on what counts as convincing explanation by a player.

Apparently I'm the only GM on ENworld (other, perhaps, than Mallus) who is happy to let a bear be tamed by a combination of intimidation and empathy. This has nothing to do with 4e or the skill challenge structure. Exactly the same issue could arise in any rules system.

At most, one might say the connection to 4e is this: that the structure encourages the players to look for ways to engage the situation, and therefore makes it more likely the the GM will have to decide what is convincing. I personally like this - I want my players to be looking for ways, including wacky ways, to enage the situation. I prefer it to a situation where the only player who is interested in the bear is the one whose PC is a ranger.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Granted, the same could arise in any rule system. But a rule system can influence how likely these problems are to arise. IMHO and IME, anyway.

BTW, did you check out the Jester's skill challenge I mentioned earlier? Sorry I can't toss you a link at the moment (gotta head back to work!)


RC

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I don't see the "explaining away" or the "glossing over"...

To me, this all seems to turn on what counts as convincing explanation by a player.

One of the things that the 4E brouhaha has taught me is that while I understand the definition of "verisimilitude," I did not understand the full scope of the practical ways in which it is applied in gaming.

Namely, I had naively supposed that verisimilitude was achieved by applying a subset of true things--the subset that was easy, or necessary, or highly pertinent to the games' subject matter--or plausibly and dramatically derived from the same. And then one simply navigated around any issues that arose because of genre expectations and the like--for example, what magic can do or not do in a given fantasy game.

However, verisimilitude is also broken by things that are true, but not known as such to someone at the table. For example, you are a running a "legal drama" modern game. You've got several players who get all their information about the courts from watching Law and Order. You go merrily about your business having "legal drama" and no verisimilitude is broken. Then you happen to read an account of an actual case that sounds interesting, and in a fit of insanity you introduce it to the game. Bam, someone is likely thinking that you've lost it. "That would never happen!"

Truth is not only stranger than fiction, it is often dramatic and very much the epitome of not verisimilitude.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

How about this example of a skill challenge one of my friends ran.

Problem: A local Math Wizard (literally, they're wizards that use bizarre magical math) has died, and the group must investigate his house for clues before Ye Olde Police show up. Rather then x successes before y failures, it was x successes before y rounds. The first two failures lead to finding nothing, all failures after that lead to red herrings. The first success gives them the primary clue they need to find a hidden wizard lab slash dungeon, all other successes tips them off or gives them items to help them solve problems there.

If they "fail" the challenge (ie run out of rounds) then the guard show up and they have to fight and/or escape.

If they get too many failures, then when they get to the lab/dungeon, they have conflicting hints on how to progress past points.

So the first "success" is what drives the story. If they "fail," then it's not a simple "WELP THAT'S IT" for the adventure; rather, failing leads to complications. And because it's something that covers the entire party, it isn't one of those cases where everyone sits around and waits for the One Player to solve everything.

Of course, were this 3e? "Divination, lol."

 

[Kannik]

And if pemerton, who is a smart, experienced, GM, was influenced in this way, what hope does a newby, wet-behind-the-ears DM have?

Iʼd say that given there are example skill challenges in the DMG plus adventures where certain skill uses flat out result in a failure, I’d say a pretty good chance for DMs to realize that not everything has to be a valid path to success. }

If the DM adjusts the encounter on the fly to present a "skill challenge" (or other such construct) that is intended to match the difficulty of a combat challenge simply because the players decide not to fight, then it is of the first kind.
...
And, again, please note that I am not claiming that any game has to be played like this. But I am saying that some games encourage it more than others.

Note fully taken. I’ll instead say my point is, then, that I disagree with the assertion (taken partially from another thread you posted in) that 4e encourages a rules-first over story-first playstyle, and that skill challenges (and the OP’s example) are a result or strongly influenced by that. As a very story- and RP-intensive player and DM I’ve found that 4e has liberated me and my players towards the story over what 3e provided (where many things had been codified in a rule structure*), and many of the things I read in the 4e DMG made me smile and reminded me of my 1e days of DM control. Of course, there are elements in all editions of (A)D&D that are very rule-first (or game-first) heavy, be it the wandering monster tables or (odd) dungeon design of 1e/2e or the quadruple dipping of prestige classes in 3e.

If the question is “does 4e elicit a more rules-focused style of play than previous editions” then I assert that on the whole it doesn’t. }

* Not counting certain spells (albeit now some/many are rituals) that required lots of GM adjudication, such as wish.

I hope you can see the difference between the DM making that choice based upon the logic of the scenario (fiction-first), making that choice to force a particular level of challenge because the mechanics of later encounters require that the PCs level before moving on (rules-first), and making that choice because the scenario is going to play out that way no matter what the players choose (railroad-first).

Absolutely, I can see that difference clearly. In many ways I see it akin to the old sandbox- vs narrative- vs hack- vs epic-arc- style discussions that have been part of the gaming conversation since at least when I started playing in ’87. Does the DM craft a story that’s irrespective of the PCs or does he create something that follows the PCs? That published modules were printed with level ranges on their cover shows that the style of campaigns that says “level appropriate challenges are appropriate” existed for a long time. In this vein, the skill challenge rules and suggested DCs (and the CR rules in 3e, and the XP values in 1e/2e) are just a framework for the DM to work off of and gain an idea of what will challenge the party a certain amount. Like all frameworks, it will be tweaked and inserted as necessary to suit the campaign and the campaign style.

The way I read pemerton’s examples, the players did something creative and unexpected, and he chose to use DCs and even the skill challenge rules as a framework on how to adjudicate the outcome and create a memorable encounter. The bear was a tough cookie, so he chose to use level appropriate DCs. If Steven Hawking (assuming he doesn’t have his exo-suit with him that day… } was suddenly attacked he’d probably be represented by a very weak physical combatant (kobold?) at pemerton’s will.

Whether preplanned or not, a skill challenge needn’t limit nor force anything, nor do I think that the presence of skill challenges, encounter and story XP, page 42 guidelines, or similar encourage or detract from putting either the world or the mechanics first. Even when compared to previous editions of the game (and for my group it has even liberated story elements).

Aaaaand if the DM’s little plot occurred no matter what I did over and over and over again then yeah, I too think that would be a campaign in which I would no longer be a player. -grins-

peace,

Kannik

 

[pemerton]

it seems as though how various attempts actually interact with each other is ignored in the "6/3" scheme

From the OP:

The player of the dwarf set up the "plug the spring" idea. On his first turn he considered the situation as I'd described it, and thought "as a strong guy with a big axe my best bet here is to probably plug the spring".

<snip>

When the dwarf's next turn came round, the wizard and paladin had already picked up on his idea and done more stuff with the stone. He then went in for (what he hoped would be, and what turned out to be) the last big effort.

I think that what I've just quoted is precisely explaining how the attempts interact with one another.

Here's an example of actual play from a recent session

Mallus, nice story, but you make me jealous! You get a free pass on that, while I'm being hauled over the coals for my relaxed approach to animal psychology and fluid dynamics!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

How about this example of a skill challenge one of my friends ran.

Problem: A local Math Wizard (literally, they're wizards that use bizarre magical math) has died, and the group must investigate his house for clues before Ye Olde Police show up. Rather then x successes before y failures, it was x successes before y rounds. The first two failures lead to finding nothing, all failures after that lead to red herrings. The first success gives them the primary clue they need to find a hidden wizard lab slash dungeon, all other successes tips them off or gives them items to help them solve problems there.

If they "fail" the challenge (ie run out of rounds) then the guard show up and they have to fight and/or escape.

If they get too many failures, then when they get to the lab/dungeon, they have conflicting hints on how to progress past points.

So the first "success" is what drives the story. If they "fail," then it's not a simple "WELP THAT'S IT" for the adventure; rather, failing leads to complications. And because it's something that covers the entire party, it isn't one of those cases where everyone sits around and waits for the One Player to solve everything.

This is an interesting plan and looks like it would have played very well. I've never liked the "stacks on" element of skill challenges that always seemed to happen with our group - it always ended up quite unconvincing. I think however, this is partly because of some players who didn't weave their ideas into the "story" but also where the DM forced a situation into a skill challenge when perhaps they shouldn't have - a case of mis-using the "new shiny". It took our group a long time to get skill challenges "right" and even then, there are at least two players in our group who still don't really get them. Perhaps as well (as you highlight), when you expand the the parameters of the conservative skill challenge system, you can get some interesting and satisfying results.

Of course, were this 3e? "Divination, lol."

Rubbish and poppycock!

A 4th level Divination spell is a tool similar to any other providing a "4e skill challenge success" if you will. It was never meant to give a definitive solution to a problem and was laziness on the part of the DM if it did. Many modules and many DMs created their own subsystems to work out what would happen in situations similar to your example above. Make sure the vital clue is given (or make sure there are at least three viable back-ups) but then let it play out with numerous different possiblities based upon the actions of the different players in the drama.

4e formalized this process (and eventually made it clear that you could play around with the structure if necessary). I still think that the best skill challenges are the ones that never draw attention to themselves and that are more loosely organised. That may not work for everyone though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Raven Crowking]

How about this example of a skill challenge one of my friends ran.

That seems like a reasonable premise (using time rather than failures), but you haven't supplied enough information to actually judge the skill challenge.

A local Math Wizard (literally, they're wizards that use bizarre magical math)

I created a "Mathematical Spell Source" for RCFG sorcerers (they gain their power through bizarre magical math)! Do great minds think alike, or do fools seldom differ?

I’ll instead say my point is, then, that I disagree with the assertion (taken partially from another thread you posted in) that 4e encourages a rules-first over story-first playstyle

Erp. My assertion is that 4e encourages a rules-first over fiction-first playstyle, where "fiction-first" is intended to mean "fictional versimilitude of setting", not "story".

I would fully agree that, for story-first gaming, 4e offers a number of compelling options. Moreover, I would argue that "rules-first" gaming makes it easier to also be "story-focused" than "fiction-first" does, because versimilitude often requires that the "story" bow to the fictional "reality" presented.

I.e., I would say that it is easier to make the rules present a desired story than it is to create a fictional milieu that requires the players follow that same storyline.

I don't think that it is coincidental that all of the story-centric games I am familiar with are also rules-first, and all the exploration-centric games I am familiar with are all fiction-first. Those are very good choices, from a designer's point of view.

And, as I said elsewhere, being "rules-first" doesn't mean that one completely ignores fictional versimilitude. Nor does being "fiction-first" mean that one completely ignores rules structure (and its affect on, and ability to shape, emerging story).

I think that what I've just quoted is precisely explaining how the attempts interact with one another.

I was thinking about your animal psychology encounter, actually.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

double post