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

[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.