An example where granular resolution based on setting => situation didn't work

[pemerton]

This thread is a sequel to these two: Approaches to prep in RPGing - GMs, players, and what play is about and Space and time in RPG setting and situation.

The example scenario is one I was remembering a couple of days ago, although it was one that I actually GMed around 30 years ago. The system was Rolemaster. The PCs were high level wizards (one was a F/MU) - mechanically RM spell-users are a bit different from D&D ones (in particular, every spell casting requires a roll, with a risk of spell failure) but their in fiction capabilities are comparable.

For reasons that are now a bit hazy, the PCs wanted to explore Tovag Baragu, the mysterious standing stones in the Baklun desert in the World of Greyhawk. The PCs teleported there, and then used magic to create a great pit that they were using to search for something-or-other that might be there. And then Paynim nomads arrived on the scene. The PCs hid themselves by creating a cover over the pit, which stopped the Baklun riders from finding them.

In principle, this should have been a dramatic scene (and I find it fairly easy to imagine a cinematic rendition that made it so): the riders wheeling to and fro on their horses, looking for the intruders into their sacred and magical place; the PCs beneath their hastily-conjured shelter, hoping to find the whatever-it-was and teleport out before they're discovered.

But in practice it fizzled, because RM has no principled way of resolving this sort of scene. (It can do some scene- or near-scene-resolution, especially for social situations, but not for this sort of thing.) Nearly everything turns on the GM's decision about how thorough the nomads will be in their search; whether one of those present knows and casts a Detect Magic-type spell while in the right area; whether they notice the different feel of the conjured floor beneath the hooves of their horses, compared to the natural terrain; etc. But resolving by way of GM decision-making is almost the opposite of dramatic!

Since then, I've become familiar with the appropriate techniques for resolving this sort of thing: although the technical details are different, I could imagine this as 4e D&D skill challenge (where the PCs accrue successes by succeeding at actions that gather their information, maintain their hiding place, or befuddle the riders above them), or as a MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic Action Scene (where the players end the scene having eliminated both the Pursued by Paynims and We Need to Find It scene distinctions), or in In A Wicked Age (contests of Covertly and For Myself vs Manoeuvring by the nomads), or as linked tests supporting a vs test in Burning Wheel. A less scene-based but still exciting approach would be Acting Under Fire in Apoclaypse World. (In that case replace the nomads with a rival bikie gang, and imagine the standing stones as an pre-Apocalypse installation.)

This example is a practical illustration of two things:

*There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep;

*Space-and-time focused resolution frameworks, which were invented for dealing with dungeon exploration where the environment is largely static and the PCs are the principle instigators of action, are not well-suited to other sorts of fictions.​

 

[Umbran]

This example is a practical illustration of two things:

*There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep;​

​

*Space-and-time focused resolution frameworks, which were invented for dealing with dungeon exploration where the environment is largely static and the PCs are the principle instigators of action, are not well-suited to other sorts of fictions.​

I can see what you mean in the second point.

However, your discussion doesn't seem to address how the scene was established, so the first point seems unsupported.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can see what you mean in the second point.

However, your discussion doesn't seem to address how the scene was established, so the first point seems unsupported.

Yeah, we'll have to disagree there as the first point is not about how the scene was established, it's about what the scene does. The problem was the lack of any mechanism/process/principle beyond GM fiat to determine what happens next. For example a 4e skill challenge would have been helpful here.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, we'll have to disagree there as the first point is not about how the scene was established, it's about what the scene does. The problem was the lack of any mechanism/process/principle beyond GM fiat to determine what happens next. For example a 4e skill challenge would have been helpful here.

Sooo... Rolemaster doesn't have any type of resolution system that could be applied? Its just all fiat? This seems...odd.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't really see a problem here, nor the proof you're holding out. The need for the GM to define the NPC capabilities, and then to make decisions acting as them isn't unique to this situation, nor any more or less problematic here than it is anywhere else.

It's a professional responsibility for the GM to separate their function as the worldbuilding creator of those NPCs, where the determination of whether they have magic detecting capabilities is made and as the motivating force behind their decision making, where the choice about where and how that capability is deployed are made, but it's not even strictly necessary. The GM could be using a module or set of prepared NPCs they didn't actually create themselves, resolving the need for that professional separation in this particular instance.

After that, I don't really see a problem with the nomads deploying the search/tracking mechanics (presuming the game has them) and/or deploying magical abilities to that end (if they have some reason to presume the PCs have and/or will use magic). Those are pretty reasonable judgement calls to be made from the perspective of the NPCs in question.

Whether or not the situation is "dramatic" is not, as far as I am concerned, a question the game mechanics are supposed to answer. They seem perfectly capable of answering the question they are for, "what happens next?" by taking in all the inputs from each action in the situation and determining the outcome.

 

[Umbran]

Yeah, we'll have to disagree there as the first point is not about how the scene was established, it's about what the scene does.

I wasn't really looking for your agreement or disagreement. But, if you desire to insert yourself...

"There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep."

That's the point in question, quoted in full, emphasis mine. He makes a direct and explicit assertion of what techniques are best to establish the scene, so, I think he's talking about how the scene was established. If that was not what that point was about, why is it half the text?

How is this point about what the scene does, when, beyond "fun and exciting RPGing" the point does not reference what the scene does?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sooo... Rolemaster doesn't have any type of resolution system that could be applied? Its just all fiat? This seems...odd.

@pemerton is the authority here, his OP said no. I'd expect there are possible approaches, like saves, or something, but it is unlikely to be a clear process. Part of the reason for this is that games like RM or AD&D adjudicate action and situation, and there's no way to make such a game complete. 4e adds a way to adjudicate in a goal centered way, so it can be applied to basically any meaningful situation.

 

[uzirath]

As you probably recall from my occasional posts, I am most experienced with GURPS and its various offshoots. It is, I think, rooted in the same tradition as Rolemaster and D&D, with GM prep establishing the setting and events that may be "activated" by PC actions. (There have been strides in recent years to accommodate wider varieties of play.)

In thinking about your Rolemaster example, I'm trying to imagine how I might run that today using GURPS. I think I would divide the scene into a few smaller, opportunities for characters to take meaningful action. (A bit like a 4e skill challenge.) I might, for example, have the party overhear the riders talking above. Do they have someone who might understand the language? Or a magical means of doing so? If so, they might hear them calling for a shaman to come test for magical interlopers. If not, they would have to guess based on the snippets that they hear (including, perhaps, the shaman approaching, chanting and shaking his staff). Or they might hear a horse's hooves echoing on the cover. Do they try to create a distraction? Prepare for battle? Perhaps plan a ruse (an illusion of a Baklun deity rising from the pit...) Etc.

Each choice would likely be resolved with skill rolls against pertinent abilities, whether mundane or magical, with consequences and further opportunities for action emerging from the particulars. I think it could play out to be fairly dramatic. I can think of similar nail-biter moments in recent game sessions.

Admittedly, this does require plenty of GM fiat, and no amount of pre-planning could account for all the possibilities. This isn't to say that other systems couldn't manage a similarly dramatic scene using entirely different mechanisms.

*There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep;

I am not sure I understand this point.

*Space-and-time focused resolution frameworks, which were invented for dealing with dungeon exploration where the environment is largely static and the PCs are the principle instigators of action, are not well-suited to other sorts of fictions.

I agree. I attempt to manage this by keeping the setting focus loose and a bit blurry for most situations. The exact ranges of spells and whatnot don't matter when we're in a broader story mode. Things can be more fun if they flow from the descriptions and die rolls. (I love using margin-of-success and failure to guide the story.) For players who like the tactical combat mini-game, I'm happy to drop into fully particularized combat when the second-by-second drama is the ideal focus. I think of that a bit like "bullet time" in The Matrix. For other groups and genres, even combat can remain a bit fuzzy.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

As you probably recall from my occasional posts, I am most experienced with GURPS and its various offshoots. It is, I think, rooted in the same tradition as Rolemaster and D&D, with GM prep establishing the setting and events that may be "activated" by PC actions. (There have been strides in recent years to accommodate wider varieties of play.)

In thinking about your Rolemaster example, I'm trying to imagine how I might run that today using GURPS. I think I would divide the scene into a few smaller, opportunities for characters to take meaningful action. (A bit like a 4e skill challenge.) I might, for example, have the party overhear the riders talking above. Do they have someone who might understand the language? Or a magical means of doing so? If so, they might hear them calling for a shaman to come test for magical interlopers. If not, they would have to guess based on the snippets that they hear (including, perhaps, the shaman approaching, chanting and shaking his staff). Or they might hear a horse's hooves echoing on the cover. Do they try to create a distraction? Prepare for battle? Perhaps plan a ruse (an illusion of a Baklun deity rising from the pit...) Etc.

Each choice would likely be resolved with skill rolls against pertinent abilities, whether mundane or magical, with consequences and further opportunities for action emerging from the particulars. I think it could play out to be fairly dramatic. I can think of similar nail-biter moments in recent game sessions.

Admittedly, this does require plenty of GM fiat, and no amount of pre-planning could account for all the possibilities. This isn't to say that other systems couldn't manage a similarly dramatic scene using entirely different mechanisms.



I am not sure I understand this point.



I agree. I attempt to manage this by keeping the setting focus loose and a bit blurry for most situations. The exact ranges of spells and whatnot don't matter when we're in a broader story mode. Things can be more fun if they flow from the descriptions and die rolls. (I love using margin-of-success and failure to guide the story.) For players who like the tactical combat mini-game, I'm happy to drop into fully particularized combat when the second-by-second drama is the ideal focus. I think of that a bit like "bullet time" in The Matrix. For other groups and genres, even combat can remain a bit fuzzy.

This all sounds good. I think the reason I like stuff like 4e SC is that it reduces the judgement part to picking a complexity. From there on out running it can be pretty much by the book. I could also see something like Cortex+ scene distinctions or FitD clocks there too. All can done on the fly.

 

[Tonguez]

So the PC create a barrier over the top of them, the NPCs are searching?

I dont recall RM mechanics but youre saying the spell to create the cover doesnt suggest a DC for the Paynim to overcome? (Ie Players have established a situation, DM is responding) Or conversely the Paynim presence doesnt trigger the PCs to do something? (even if the choice is to ‘wait it out’ thats still players choice)

 

[Imaro]

@pemerton is the authority here, his OP said no. I'd expect there are possible approaches, like saves, or something, but it is unlikely to be a clear process. Part of the reason for this is that games like RM or AD&D adjudicate action and situation, and there's no way to make such a game complete. 4e adds a way to adjudicate in a goal centered way, so it can be applied to basically any meaningful situation.

I'm not following here... why can't RM or AD&D be adjudicated in a goal centered way? As a Thief my goal is to pick the lock... as a Ranger my goal is to find any tracks the creature may have left behind. As long as the result of the task you are choosing to enact aligns with what you wish to achieve...why can't you?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I wasn't really looking for your agreement or disagreement. But, if you desire to insert yourself...

Revolutionary concept, its a threaded message base, you post, others reply!

"There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep."

That's the point in question, quoted in full, emphasis mine. He makes a direct and explicit assertion of what techniques are best to establish the scene, so, I think he's talking about how the scene was established. If that was not what that point was about, why is it half the text?

How is this point about what the scene does, when, beyond "fun and exciting RPGing" the point does not reference what the scene does?

Well, the OP actually goes on to talk about what the scene does, or or doesn't, do. In fact the TITLE OF THE THREAD actually describes that. @pemerton talks about the actions of the PCs and describes how the RM rules don't really tell him how to handle things, and as a consequence how the scene turns out to be fairly anti-climactic. I mean, sure, he doesn't really drag on about exactly how that played out past a certain point, but my assumption is we wouldn't learn anything more about his point. Besides, I think we can all get the idea, right? There are some decisions about what sort of things the NPCs should do, is it or is it not meta-gaming for them to even be suspicious, do they search for something hidden, why would they do that, and my guess is presumably they don't search, or they find nothing, and they go away. Alternately, maybe they do find something, but I'm not sure exactly what kind of anti-climax ensues in that case. I guess perhaps the Paynims are just defeated by the PC's magic and can't do anything.

And as I said in another post, I presume, partly based on knowing people's preferences from other discussions, that this is probably meant to contrast with something like a 4e Skill Challenge or whatnot that would PROBABLY produce a kind of an interesting structured challenge, though the GM might have to supply some fiction here or there to describe the outcomes of the checks.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not following here... why can't RM or AD&D be adjudicated in a goal centered way? As a Thief my goal is to pick the lock... as a Ranger my goal is to find any tracks the creature may have left behind. As long as the result of the task you are choosing to enact aligns with what you wish to achieve...why can't you?

The goal of the PCs here is to hide from the Paynim, but its not a simple situation that can be adjudicated with a single action. The Paynim keep trying things, the PCs have to respond, its more of a contest. The goal isn't as simple as 'opening a lock', and in any case that would be a poor description of a GOAL. The goal would be to, say, open the safe and get the papers that are presumably inside. NOW you have something that you can build fiction on top of, the thief could fail and the result is an open safe with nothing inside, or a booby trap burns up the papers, etc. Now, maybe in that simple a case it isn't much of a difference, but in the case of "prevent the Paynim from finding our excavation" its a bit more complicated and various possibilities can arise. Something like a 4e SC will give you that 'meatier' sort of game process to use here. And yes, you can say "oh, just use some series of checks" (saves, whatever) but how many? What kinds? How to measure victory or defeat in a larger sense?

 

[Tonguez]

. @pemerton talks about the actions of the PCs and describes how the RM rules don't really tell him how to handle things, and as a consequence how the scene turns out to be fairly anti-climactic. I mean, sure, he doesn't really drag on about exactly how that played out past a certain point, but my assumption is we wouldn't learn anything more about his point. Besides, I think we can all get the idea, right? There are some decisions about what sort of things the NPCs should do, is it or is it not meta-gaming for them to even be suspicious, do they search for something hidden, why would they do that, and my guess is presumably they don't search, or they find nothing, and they go away. Alternately, maybe they do find something, but I'm not sure exactly what kind of anti-climax ensues in that case. I guess perhaps the Paynims are just defeated by the PC's magic and can't do anything.

well really the question is Why are the Paynim riders there?
1 Are the Paynim just a random encounter passing through? - well the PCs have dealt with that by hiding so Outcome: the Paynim just pass through
2 The Paynim know/suspect the PCs are there and came to investigate - Outcome; the Paynim investigate
3 The Paynim have come to the Standing Stones to camp Outcome: the PCs are trapped and need to escape

 

[Imaro]

The goal of the PCs here is to hide from the Paynim, but its not a simple situation that can be adjudicated with a single action. The Paynim keep trying things, the PCs have to respond, its more of a contest. The goal isn't as simple as 'opening a lock', and in any case that would be a poor description of a GOAL. The goal would be to, say, open the safe and get the papers that are presumably inside. NOW you have something that you can build fiction on top of, the thief could fail and the result is an open safe with nothing inside, or a booby trap burns up the papers, etc. Now, maybe in that simple a case it isn't much of a difference, but in the case of "prevent the Paynim from finding our excavation" its a bit more complicated and various possibilities can arise. Something like a 4e SC will give you that 'meatier' sort of game process to use here. And yes, you can say "oh, just use some series of checks" (saves, whatever) but how many? What kinds? How to measure victory or defeat in a larger sense?

Shouldn't those questions flow from the restraints and possibilites the fiction that is created as tasks are completed creates?

 

[FrogReaver]

*There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep;

I'd posit that most GM prep games often run into situations that aren't in the gm's prep. The solution in such a game is simply improvise. Use the fiction that has been established and 'preestablished', the genre, what the players will find plausible and interesting and what will move the game forward as a basis for determining what happens next in the non-prepped situations.

*Space-and-time focused resolution frameworks, which were invented for dealing with dungeon exploration where the environment is largely static and the PCs are the principle instigators of action, are not well-suited to other sorts of fictions.

This isn't being demonstrated anywhere (though may be true). Though, I'd suggest the opposite is demonstrated... I'd wager your Rolemaster game didn't come to a grinding halt when confronted with the situation established. Instead you improvised and moved on.

As for the example itself, I think the context of why the Paynim were there either fictionally or mechanically should have been enough for the DM to use to navigate the situation.

 

[FrogReaver]

well really the question is Why are the Paynim riders there?
1 Are the Paynim just a random encounter passing through? - well the PCs have dealt with that by hiding so Outcome: the Paynim just pass through
2 The Paynim know/suspect the PCs are there and came to investigate - Outcome; the Paynim investigate
3 The Paynim have come to the Standing Stones to camp Outcome: the PCs are trapped and need to escape

Exactly. It never ceases to amaze me such critical information is left out in order to attempt to illustrate that a solid mix of preestablished fiction + improv and possibly a few skill checks cannot resolve virtually any situation. Provide that one background detail (or improv detail) and the answer to the rest becomes mostly trivial.

Now, it's true such a playstyle may not necessarily handle a situation in an interesting or dramatic, but a resolution can be found.

 

[FrogReaver]

The goal of the PCs here is to hide from the Paynim, but its not a simple situation that can be adjudicated with a single action. The Paynim keep trying things, the PCs have to respond, its more of a contest. The goal isn't as simple as 'opening a lock', and in any case that would be a poor description of a GOAL. The goal would be to, say, open the safe and get the papers that are presumably inside. NOW you have something that you can build fiction on top of, the thief could fail and the result is an open safe with nothing inside, or a booby trap burns up the papers, etc. Now, maybe in that simple a case it isn't much of a difference, but in the case of "prevent the Paynim from finding our excavation" its a bit more complicated and various possibilities can arise. Something like a 4e SC will give you that 'meatier' sort of game process to use here. And yes, you can say "oh, just use some series of checks" (saves, whatever) but how many? What kinds? How to measure victory or defeat in a larger sense?

IMO, that feels alot like arbitrarily deciding what should count as a proper goal and what shouldn't.

'My goal is to open the chest to see what's inside' is no different in construction than 'my goal is to open the chest and find Excalibur.'

 

[pemerton]

@uzirath, thanks for the post!

*There are many sorts of situation, such as the one I've described, which in principle can make for fun and exciting RPGing, but which will not be best established via a technique of PCs-going-to-place-X activates situation Y as per the GM's prep;

I am not sure I understand this point.

It's a generalisation of the point you make here:

I think I would divide the scene into a few smaller, opportunities for characters to take meaningful action.

This isn't a case of the situation being triggered by the PCs going to such-and-such a place in respect of which the GM has made notes about what situation will be triggered. A you note, "this does require plenty of GM fiat, and no amount of pre-planning could account for all the possibilities."

Also, when you say this, I think you raise something that is related to my two points in the OP:

Each choice would likely be resolved with skill rolls against pertinent abilities, whether mundane or magical, with consequences and further opportunities for action emerging from the particulars. I think it could play out to be fairly dramatic.

I don't think resolution of an orthodox RM skill check allows for the full range and weight of consequences necessary to make this play out dramatically. My GURPS-fu is weak, though I would suspect that, by default, it tends to the rather granular and in-game-causally-constrained in its approach to consequences.

 

[pemerton]

I dont recall RM mechanics but youre saying the spell to create the cover doesnt suggest a DC for the Paynim to overcome? (Ie Players have established a situation, DM is responding) Or conversely the Paynim presence doesnt trigger the PCs to do something? (even if the choice is to ‘wait it out’ thats still players choice)

The players had their PCs do something, as I described in the OP. They hid themselves in the pit they'd dug, and searched for whatever it was they were searching for. The cover they created will have been some sort of create wood or create earth/stone effect (I don't recall the details any more). There is no DC to "overcome" it, other than generic rules for Perception/Tracking and Detect Magic-type effect.

My point is that the system has no very satisfactory way for working out what happens in this situation, because all the adjudication rules are specified in granular space/time terms (eg for 1 minute per level, as long as you concentrate, you can detect magic within 50 feet; plus rules that say how far a horse moves per minute, assuming a rider with such-and-such a riding bonus which will suffer a -50 penalty for concentration; etc).

I don't really see a problem here, nor the proof you're holding out. The need for the GM to define the NPC capabilities, and then to make decisions acting as them isn't unique to this situation, nor any more or less problematic here than it is anywhere else.

It's a professional responsibility for the GM to separate their function as the worldbuilding creator of those NPCs, where the determination of whether they have magic detecting capabilities is made and as the motivating force behind their decision making, where the choice about where and how that capability is deployed are made, but it's not even strictly necessary. The GM could be using a module or set of prepared NPCs they didn't actually create themselves, resolving the need for that professional separation in this particular instance.

After that, I don't really see a problem with the nomads deploying the search/tracking mechanics (presuming the game has them) and/or deploying magical abilities to that end (if they have some reason to presume the PCs have and/or will use magic). Those are pretty reasonable judgement calls to be made from the perspective of the NPCs in question.

Whether or not the situation is "dramatic" is not, as far as I am concerned, a question the game mechanics are supposed to answer. They seem perfectly capable of answering the question they are for, "what happens next?" by taking in all the inputs from each action in the situation and determining the outcome.

Well, I was there and I'm reporting how it went down.

It wasn't dramatic. It should have been, but it wasn't.

Generating game stats for dozens or hundreds of nomads is not exciting. Working through their abilities, and making decisions like when do they cast Detect Magic, at what range relative to where the PCs are, and then which of the many areas they might scan do they actually scan is not exciting and also involves a fair bit of largely arbitrary decision-making.