Actual play examples - balance between fiction and mechanics

[CuRoi]

In practice, if I want all the players to engage a complex challenge, I try to make sure that I establish the fictional premise in such a way that all have something to do. For example, the party's last complex social interaction was with some witches, and the dwarf's contribution to that skill challenge was his showing as a pit fighter against some spiders living underneath the witches' house.

But in a less complex challenge (like the 6/3 challenges described in my OP) I'm a bit more relaxed, working on the theory that even if one player can't think of a way to do anything useful, and that PC is just standing there getting eaten by a bear or generating failures, it won't make much difference. The other PCs will be able to pick up the slack.

Well, I can't say I dislike your approach and it has indeed prompted me to break out the dusty 4e books again and review some of the rules. I only spent a few months with it right after release. I just could never get into it as a game.

However, in any system, you can make something of it if you have the talent. I'm still not convinced that the game needs a structured out-of-combat encounter ruleset. Most of the examples I have seen in this thread and others involve talented DMs turning the proverbial water into wine IMO.

The process you describe just seems too...mechanical for my tastes. I mean, in a very loose sense it does describe pretty much what I already do for an out of combat encounter. I decide on the fly how skills play into it, what will change with the story as things evolve and what each player can bring to the table. For whatever reason reducing it to a structured challenge system such as you describe feels like a step backward to me.

I run mostly "by the seat of my pants" going on the theory that I have no clue what a player is going to do. Most outside of combat encounters evolve fairly organically in my game - in fact I can't usually tell you beforehand where an outside of combat encounter may evolve or with what NPC/situation. Setting up a bunch of skill challenges following some sort of structured ruleset beforehand is not at all feasible.

I can see how the system might be invaluable to a novice DM (and I'm not saying your approach is that of a novice, it looks extremely well developed and skilled) so that they can have a laundry list of how everyone will be involved with every encounter of a pre-defined module; combat and otherwise. Which doesn't surprise me too much because I really got the feeling that the 4e DMG was written more as a training manual than a reference book. Altogether that's not a bad thing, we need more competent DMs in the hobby and frankly, unless they replace the DM with a computer as some suggest, it's the only way the hobby will grow.

My concern is that this sort of "rules for everything" thinking encourages changing the game from a RolePG to more of a board game by quantifying every aspect of it. So the novice DM that picks this up, may just never truly get that shift in thinking. I already saw that a bit with 3e where suddenly since there was a very defined rule for nearly everything you could do, DMs and Players had to be overly cautious of allowing anything outside the scope of those rules upon rules lest their new ruling cause some sort of rift in time-space . 4th edition seems aimed at placing more on the players shoulders, removing more from the DMs purview and at the same time making it "easy" for the DM to run a game. I'm not into easy - the very probably overly complex camapigns and plotlines I develop don't fit into the "easy" category.

At any rate, I do plan to give the skill challenge idea some more thought as a result of this thread, but for the moment I prefer to keep the mechanics a little more fluid in my fiction. I appreaciate your enlightening me on the creative and intelligent sides of this system!

 

[Kannik]

I am defining a fiction-first game as one where, when a dichotomy between rules or the logic of the fictional world, the fictional world takes precendence. The rules are forced to fit that logic, or are discarded.

I am defining a rules-first game as one where the the converse is true. The rules are applied, and then the logic is made to fit the results.

Excellent, I am glad I asked, then. } In my mind I have always seen this more of what I would term "DM experience/skill" (or playstyle, not necessarily low skill). Do certain rule sets influence this one way or another? I suppose that rulesets with more (in terms of number of) rules encourage more rules adherence vs more "rules-light" systems where it gives the impression that you have more licence of what you can/should do. Perhaps that explains why my group opened up and took what was happening in-world more readily than they did under 3e, due to 4e’s looser structure and 1e-DM-ness. Hmm.

Food for thought... thanks! }

peace,

Kannik

 

[Kannik]

I run mostly "by the seat of my pants" going on the theory that I have no clue what a player is going to do. Most outside of combat encounters evolve fairly organically in my game - in fact I can't usually tell you beforehand where an outside of combat encounter may evolve or with what NPC/situation. Setting up a bunch of skill challenges following some sort of structured ruleset beforehand is not at all feasible.

Seat of the pants (and sometimes I think I have no pants ) is how I often run my skill challenges. One of the classic examples was a chase vs a couple of intruders in a city. PC members were all doing what they thought would help to catch the runners -- the Paladin used his athletics to hustle, climb walls and barrel though obstacles, the mage cast spells to slow them down and assist the Paladin, the fighter shouted loudly, and the crowning moment came when the rogue, after using some shortcuts to get ahead of them, barrelled out from an alleyway, careened off the runners, knocking them off balance, having them stumble into a parked cart, where the paladin then leapt off the cart and flying tackled them into the ground.

That was one of the first skill challenges I ran, completely off the cuff. The framework of the skill challenge allowed me to determine a chance of success (ie, how difficult I wanted it for the party to be able to get the guys) and also how long to run the scene (ie, keep the pacing up and not letting it drag out or be over too quick to be savoured as a victory).

For other challenges that are ‘special’ in some way – something big or odd or specific is going on or it mixes up things -- I’ve written up various potential options for the PCs that can count as successes. But I always leave the door open to their creativity, so it often turns into either half- or full-on seat of the pants. (I run the skill challenges very transparently, with a traditional “here’s the scene, what do you do?” methodology. If what they’re doing calls for a skill roll, then I’ll ask them to make one.)

peace,

Kannik

 

[CuRoi]

Seat of the pants (and sometimes I think I have no pants ) is how I often run my skill challenges.

...snip great example...

For other challenges that are ‘special’ in some way – something big or odd or specific is going on or it mixes up things -- I’ve written up various potential options for the PCs that can count as successes. But I always leave the door open to their creativity, so it often turns into either half- or full-on seat of the pants. (I run the skill challenges very transparently, with a traditional “here’s the scene, what do you do?” methodology. If what they’re doing calls for a skill roll, then I’ll ask them to make one.)

So turning back to fiction and mechanics, and, if I can, your discussion with Raven Crowking about Rules First or Story First - I think your example looks to me to be more "Story First". I'm also not sure how much you are employing the Skill Challenge idea by your description. An exciting chase, rolling skill checks and casting spells along the way fits any of the DnD editions in the hands of a competent DM.

So, if I were at your table, do I hear you calling for skill checks and advancing the story as things go along and using a natural storytelling pace? Or for the above chase scene, do I hear you calling for intiative, telling players they need "x successes" to catch the guy, telling each player when they fail that they just got a "-2 toward completion", they are "X successes away from catching the guy", etc.?

I can see the material in the Skill Challenges section being used either way. One way puts a very heavy emphasis on the "rules" as the story unfolds. True, RPGs are all about using a set of rules to play out a story. However, when the numbers and the procedures take center stage at the table, the fiction almost automatically takes a backseat.

I think the novice DM would probably lean toward the regimented style which has each skill challenge looking and feeling like another combat (initiative rolled, bonuses being bandied about, chalking up what amounts to "hits" against the challenge "hit points"). Given time, that same DM may develop a more story first style in time. Then again, they may just keep running the game like a series of regimented challenges ruled less by a flowing narrative but more by a focus on bonus stacking, re-working combat powers to fit out of combat roles, and dice rolling to resolve everything.

 

[pemerton]

So, if I were at your table, do I hear you calling for skill checks and advancing the story as things go along and using a natural storytelling pace? Or for the above chase scene, do I hear you calling for intiative, telling players they need "x successes" to catch the guy, telling each player when they fail that they just got a "-2 toward completion", they are "X successes away from catching the guy", etc.?

In the two encounters I described in the OP, I sequenced the action in initiative terms. Both involved round-by-round actions on the part of the PCs and the bear/weird.

When a player's turn comes up, I handle it as I do a combat - namely, I clarify the situatin at hand (if there's any ambiguity/confusion following the resolution of the last player's turn) and ask them what they want to do on their turn.

As for progress - in combat I let the players know when enemies are bloodied. In the skill challenges described, I gave a general indication of whether the bear seemed "nearly tamed" or the spring "nearly blocked".

In other sorts of challenges, I handle things in different ways. But it always involves describing the fictional situation and asking the player how their PC engages it. In this particular respect I don't see any difference between skill challenges, combat and exploration in my game.

 

[Kannik]

So turning back to fiction and mechanics, and, if I can, your discussion with Raven Crowking about Rules First or Story First - I think your example looks to me to be more "Story First". I'm also not sure how much you are employing the Skill Challenge idea by your description. An exciting chase, rolling skill checks and casting spells along the way fits any of the DnD editions in the hands of a competent DM.

So, if I were at your table, do I hear you calling for skill checks and advancing the story as things go along and using a natural storytelling pace? Or for the above chase scene, do I hear you calling for intiative, telling players they need "x successes" to catch the guy, telling each player when they fail that they just got a "-2 toward completion", they are "X successes away from catching the guy", etc.?

I too would call it fiction first: the initiation was part of the fiction of the world (and the story being told), the players responded based on their PC’s personalities and abilities, and the rules are a framework to make it a game (with uncertain outcomes).

If you were sitting at the table (which character would you like to play? ) you would have heard it begin something akin to, “As you emerge from the burning building you hear a commotion to your left; looking over you see two hooded figures running past a down villager, one throwing the remains of a torch into a planter.” The players needed little prompting and sprang into action. In this instance I didn’t mention any details of the skill challenge, I took the first person who spoke as the ‘head’ of initiative and went around the table hearing each PC’s action (in other times I’ve had them roll initiative, especially if it mixes in combat).

How much am I using the Skill Challenge framework? Completely: the PCs must make rolls against skills that I think will forward the action (the fighter tried to intimidate the guys to stop – it only made them run faster so a failure despite (or due to ) his good roll) against DCs set by the level (ie skill of) of the villains, the party had to acquire X number of successes before reaching Y number of failures, and there was an outcome for both succeeding (capture) or failing (escape). I didn’t write it out fully beforehand but I used the SC rules to create it and work it out on the fly.

In some cases I’ll be more explicit – something akin to PirateCat’s example in one of the two threads about this topic that I've been reading the past few days and that I can't find right now or else I would link to it directly .

Now, could a skilled DM do this before 4e? Sure – I’ve never seen SCs as something exactly revolutionary just a standardized way of adjudicating challenges, scenes, skills or events that require more than one skill roll. And I found it useful for both novice and expert DMs – novice DMs may not immediately think “oh, I can need a bunch of skill rolls and player roles to get to success for this chase/building a boat/overland travel/diplomatic interaction,” and for the expert DM it is a great framework to guide how tough and how long to run a challenge. (for the latter I have sometimes run the challenge a success early or late to let a particularly spectacular action be the end, for cinematic reasons )

I think the novice DM would probably lean toward the regimented style which has each skill challenge looking and feeling like another combat (initiative rolled, bonuses being bandied about, chalking up what amounts to "hits" against the challenge "hit points"). Given time, that same DM may develop a more story first style in time. Then again, they may just keep running the game like a series of regimented challenges ruled less by a flowing narrative but more by a focus on bonus stacking, re-working combat powers to fit out of combat roles, and dice rolling to resolve everything.

And this is the golden key. } All DMs I’ve played with, from 1e to 4e have had differing ways they approached the game, running the gamut from rules-intensive to rules-transparent. And, more often than not the novice DMs (myself included) had the rules up front. Heh, it’s kind of like driving a car with a manual transmission: when you’re starting out you’re thinking about the ‘rules’ of the clutch/shifter and you jerk around a lot, as you get familiar with both the ‘rules’ and also the way the car handles and the flow of traffic and etc you don’t even think or notice anymore you’re shifting, you focus on where you want to go and let the mechanics/car do its thing to empower you to get there.

Of course, differing play groups also have their different styles. One group I know loves playing Hackmaster to the hilt with the rules (and tropes) to the forefront. That IS the game to them when they’re playing Hackmaster. When they play D&D though they’re not nearly as focused on the rules.

Do skill challenges themselves encourage a rules- first or fiction-first mindset? I would argue neither. Did the presentation they are given in DMG1 and various adventures do that? That’s a whole different question. I think certain examples were given that were very explicit “this is a skill challenge!” so that the players would get to learn the mechanic (just like the players know how combat works, and general skill use works, to know the subsystem of skill challenges was deemed important) and that became rutted in the mind as the definitive example(s) of how to run an SC.

So it's great that we're having these conversations and can see the breadth of possibilities available within an SC! (and the rest of the game's systems, for that matter) }

peace,

Kannik

 

[Hussar]

/snip
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?

Funnily enough, my first Chivalry and Sorcery character was a math wizard.

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).
/snip
RC

I think this really highlights the different approaches very well. I'd totally agree that a 4e SC would not do what you want it to do. That's not how 4e is presented IMO. 4e is a bad game for the kind of "exploration" game that you are looking for.

Which is probably why I like 4e. Exploration games are not what I'm looking for.

And, thinking about it, I think I'd agree that story first games tend to be rules first. Looking at the games I've been reading or playing over the past couple of years, that's totally true. Take something like 3:16 Carnage Beyond the Stars. In 3:16, you have a Strength mechanic where the player can absolutely declare an encounter a success by spending the Strength and then giving a short narrative about how something in that character's past allows him to "win" the specific encounter. That Strength then becomes incorporated permanently into the character's personality.

There's also a Weakness mechanic that allows a player to lose an encounter on his own terms - so, instead of dying, he's captured, that sort of thing - with the same idea, that weakness is then incorporated into the PC's personality.

I'd agree with how you characterize this RC.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'd agree with how you characterize this RC.

I'd say it is more accurate than not. In our group, there is something of a hybrid approach. Namely, I'm running things, in RC's terms, as a story-first game achieved by me, the DM, approaching things often in a rules-first manner while the players are playing mainly in a fiction-first manner.

That is, I'm aware of some of these structures and relationships that we have been discussing, and am manipulating them to produce situations that will drive the action (no matter what actions the characters take), while the players are simply reacting to the world as the find it, usually in character, and going from there.

Naturally, with 4E, this is not exactly the same as it would be with 3E, or 2E, or Hero. Metagaming abilities with powers, as with any kind of action point mechanics, skew the players more towards the rules-driven story approach. And we certainly will drop OOC and thus out of immersion even playing a game like Runequest, if the setting and fiction-first approach temporarily fails to produce something we find important. But the play of the players with 4E is noticably closer to 3E than to, say, BW, where you can't help but drive the action through story first rules.

But then what was going on in my head when I ran 3E was a lot closer to the default 4E experience than the 3E rules would have one suspect, too.

 

[CuRoi]

And this is the golden key. } All DMs I’ve played with, from 1e to 4e have had differing ways they approached the game, running the gamut from rules-intensive to rules-transparent. And, more often than not the novice DMs (myself included) had the rules up front. Heh, it’s kind of like driving a car with a manual transmission: when you’re starting out you’re thinking about the ‘rules’ of the clutch/shifter and you jerk around a lot, as you get familiar with both the ‘rules’ and also the way the car handles and the flow of traffic and etc you don’t even think or notice anymore you’re shifting, you focus on where you want to go and let the mechanics/car do its thing to empower you to get there.

Of course, differing play groups also have their different styles. One group I know loves playing Hackmaster to the hilt with the rules (and tropes) to the forefront. That IS the game to them when they’re playing Hackmaster. When they play D&D though they’re not nearly as focused on the rules.

Do skill challenges themselves encourage a rules- first or fiction-first mindset? I would argue neither. Did the presentation they are given in DMG1 and various adventures do that? That’s a whole different question. I think certain examples were given that were very explicit “this is a skill challenge!” so that the players would get to learn the mechanic (just like the players know how combat works, and general skill use works, to know the subsystem of skill challenges was deemed important) and that became rutted in the mind as the definitive example(s) of how to run an SC.

So it's great that we're having these conversations and can see the breadth of possibilities available within an SC! (and the rest of the game's systems, for that matter) }

peace,

Kannik

You use the analogy of first learning to drive a car. I'd like to use a different example - learning to ride a bike. At what point do you lose the training wheels, especially if the system never presents the concept of a "bike" to move on to?

I do still feel that while it may be a helpful concept to frame skill challenges with an encounter-style mechanic, but it ultimately sets things back a step without providing a framework to "move on". Yes, it loosely approximates what any decent DM might do when creating opportunities for skill use and player interaction in their worlds. But often what the rules lay down is simply accepted as "the final truth".

3e IMO encouraged a crop of rules heavy players that found it hard to accept things that weren't in a book somewhere (because the rules appeared to have an answer for even the smallest minutae) and a group of DMs that were so innundated with rules that adding anything else was a chore. I've seen this displayed with players at my table and through a host of comments on this message board and others. If it wasn't in the rules, they firmly believed (or decided out of expediency) that it could not happen.

However, the one area where the 3e DM was fairly free to improvise was in out of combat situations. Sure they had an NPC reaction table and a few skills gave some DCs, a few spells had some effect, but there wasn't book after book of non-combat feats and abilities. Nor was a non-combat situation presented in a structured "roll initiative and takes turns whacking on the bad guy" vein.

Now that both combat and non-combat are being presented in very similar skins it makes it very difficult to distinguish one from the other. Mechanical trappings make for mechanical solutions in most cases. I mean, can you seriously describe a rules transparent 4e combat? It was hard enough with 3e, but I think it is simply not possible with 4e.

So, I would argue presentation is extremely important regarding whether skill challenges necessarily support a rules-first mechanic or not. Experienced DMs can possibly move beyond this "rules first" presentation (though I never could do this with 4e combat) but less experienced DMs and players will not necessarily ever do so. And as you say, the novice DM may start out putting the rules up front, but what inspiration do they have for ever altering that mechanic? I wouldn't be surprised that as a novice 4e DM's style expands, they'll go looking for a different RPG or maybe even play it "old school" with earlier editions to run the type of games they want.

Exactly as you say, every group will find its own style and edition (or RPG) and settle into whatever play style they like. Our group just never felt we could get 4e to fit our style. I mean, I can see playing 4e as the DnD Encounters is rolling it out - an ad hoc 2 hour "hey join anytime" sort of game where you face off against a proscribed encounter. I think it is perfect for that. But as an ongoing RPG campaign? Just not really my style and it is specifically due to the difficulty of balancing the fiction and the mechanics. IMO, YMMV and all that

 

[pemerton]

You use the analogy of first learning to drive a car. I'd like to use a different example - learning to ride a bike. At what point do you lose the training wheels, especially if the system never presents the concept of a "bike" to move on to?

I do still feel that while it may be a helpful concept to frame skill challenges with an encounter-style mechanic, but it ultimately sets things back a step without providing a framework to "move on".

I personally don't see it this way.

I look at a game like HeroWars, and ask myself - is this trainer wheels? Or is this a game to produce a certain sort of sophisticated RPG experience? I think the latter.

Skill challenges aren't just a preliminary or a warm-up for the real thing. They have a logic of their own: by requiring the players to make checks, they oblige the players to engage the ingame situation via their PCs, thus creating complications to which the GM must respond; by requiring the GM to adjudicate checks, and especially failures, they oblige the GM to create complications to which the players must respond; and by setting a total number of checks required, they pace this whole thing in the context of the game.

This is not practice for free-form gaming. It's an alternative to it, for those who want the rules, played more-or-less as written, to generate a tightly paced engaging game.

I've done a lot of freeform GMing. I don't like skill challenges because I felt I needed more training. I like skill challenges because they are an alternative, that produces a different experience at the table.

To talk about skill challenges using the language of training is, I think, to miss this important point.

EDIT: In my view, the main problem with the skill challenge rules isn't the rules per se - these are intended to provide a certain sort of RPGing experience, and I think do a reasonable job of doing so - but rather the lack of commentary/explanation around the rules. The rules don't talk about the design intention of skill challenges. In this respect they compare poorly to the rules in HeroWars/Quest or Maelstrom Storytelling.