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

[pemerton]

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

How do we know that the nomads just pass through? Perhaps they notice the suspicious "artificial" cover.

How do we resolve any investigation the nomads undertake? As per my post just upthread, the relevant rules are defined in terms that make sense in Arneson/Gygax-style dungeon exploration - where space and time are closely tracked in a granular fashion - but don't work very well in this sort of context.

 

[tomBitonti]

What I remember from my RM days is that such a scene would require a lot of GM rolls that were mostly hidden from the players to determine what the nomads saw and how they reacted. This would take a few non-interactive minutes of GM time. I suspect the lack of drama arose from the very detailed nature of resolutions in RM and that much of it was handled entirely by the GM.

I’m not seeing a big difference in terms of the tools available, except that there are more well defined social resolution mechanisms. Being hostile/neutral/friendly/&etc, and making checks to adjust this. Except, the tools are very thin — encounter resolution still mostly depends on GM fiat.

Maybe the encounter was unexciting because the players successfully hid and the Nomads left? But then, did the encounter need to be exciting? Maybe this encounter needed better framing: A quick presentation that there were nomads patrolling the area, and they might be hostile if the players activities were discovered. Then the initial encounter could be the start of a protracted engagement where the players must take additional steps to avoid detection.

TomB

 

[Lanefan]

@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.

Well, there is. Here it would involve breaking the scene down into units of game time (maybe each a few minutes long) and determining for each time unit a) what the PCs are doing and-or how successfully they're doing it, and b) what the NPCs are doing and how successful they are.

Determining what the PCs are doing is easy: the players will tell you, and resolution runs as normal.

Determing what the NPCs are doing, in a more granular way than just "searching", would I think come down to some random dice rolls, as (if I'm reading the OP scenario right) the searchers didn't have much to go on other than suspicion, and thus their finding or noticing anything amiss would pretty much come down to sheer luck. Roll the dice.

As for the use of spells, the OP indicates (but doesn't say outright) whether the NPCs' spells-available were written up in advance. If the players caught the DM off-guard with a sudden decision to teleport to the ruins and search there, the NPCs' spells etc. not being pre-written is completely understandable: the DM is in full-on react mode, and would have to quickly set some odds and then roll to see if a) any of the NPCs had Detect Magic available (or indeed if any of them were casters at all), and then b) the RM equivalent of an Int or Wis check to see if such spell got cast.

And if the riders do notice something amiss, it's then on the GM to play them true to themselves as to what they do next. Do they take up defensive positions to attack anything coming out of the ruins (i.e. the cautious approach)? Do they send some riders to get help (the delay-till-later-and-hope-the-problem-goes-away approach)? Do they try to bust through the hollow floor (the aggressive approach)? Again, if these are NPCs the GM has just had to dream up on the fly, some dice-rolling - maybe along the lines of a sliding-scale morale check with lower meaning more cautious and higher meaning more aggressive - might again be in order. I've done things like this many a time in the past when I've been unexpectedly put into wing-it mode.

4e adds a way to adjudicate in a goal centered way, so it can be applied to basically any meaningful situation.

If you're thinking of skill challenges, I'm not sure here. You'd sacrifice a huge amount of granularity (and drama) in order to play this all out as a skill challenge...and would it be two opposing SCs - the PCs get one for their searching of the ruins while the NPCs get one for their searching for the PCs? From what little I know about 4e I don't think NPCs get to use skill challenges, so by RAW that option is out.

Never mind that if the PCs fail on their SC it still doesn't necessarily mean the riders have found them - the failed SC on the ruins search could be for any number of other reasons e.g. an impassable barrier, a pit-wall collapse, they simply don't find anything of use, or whatever; which kind of leaves the riders hanging even though they represent the dramatic element.

 

[Lanefan]

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

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

Maybe that's the issue - you were hoping for drama in that situation, but by coming up with an effective way to hide their presence the PCs largely rendered the drama aspect moot, and thus the result was disappointing for you.

As a player, I'd be pretty happy if our hiding worked out that well; because risk reduction is always a good thing to do and here, we did just that.

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.

Dice are your friend, my friend. Let them decide for you.

 

[pemerton]

Maybe the encounter was unexciting because the players successfully hid and the Nomads left? But then, did the encounter need to be exciting?

In the film Minority Report there is a scene where Tom Cruise hides from searching "spiders". It's an exciting scene. A similar scene in a RPG should, in principle, be comparable in excitement.

Maybe that's the issue - you were hoping for drama in that situation, but by coming up with an effective way to hide their presence the PCs largely rendered the drama aspect moot

In the scene I just described, Tom Cruise comes up with an effective way to hide from the spiders, by (as I recall) getting into a bath of ice that means they don't detect his body heat.

That doesn't mean the scene is not exciting - that's the culmination of the excitement.

 

[Lanefan]

In the film Minority Report there is a scene where Tom Cruise hides from searching "spiders". It's an exciting scene. A similar scene in a RPG should, in principle, be comparable in excitement.

In the scene I just described, Tom Cruise comes up with an effective way to hide from the spiders, by (as I recall) getting into a bath of ice that means they don't detect his body heat.

That doesn't mean the scene is not exciting - that's the culmination of the excitement.

Never seen the film so I'll have to take your word for it.

 

[pemerton]

Never seen the film so I'll have to take your word for it.

OK. There's a scene in the first LotR film where the Hobbits hide behind a tree root while a Nazgul searches for them. This is exciting. The fact that the Hobbits effectively hide doesn't make it not exciting.

I think in the second Mission Impossible film, Tom Cruise is infiltrating a <hi tech room of some sort> and hides suspended just below the ceiling in a harness. Again, it's exciting.

This is not an uncommon thing in adventure fiction.

 

[Tonguez]

How do we know that the nomads just pass through? Perhaps they notice the suspicious "artificial" cover.

How do we resolve any investigation the nomads undertake? As per my post just upthread, the relevant rules are defined in terms that make sense in Arneson/Gygax-style dungeon exploration - where space and time are closely tracked in a granular fashion - but don't work very well in this sort of context.

1 if the Paynim were just randomly passing by and the PCs successfully hide, then the Paynim have no reason to to stop and thus carry on.

2 The DM decides the Paynim decide to look around - in DnD passive perception might get consulted. Ask the PCs what they are doing while the Paynim are looking around…

3 if the Paynim are suspicious they investigate - roll Investigate. Ask the PCs what they are doing while the Paynim investigate…

 

[pemerton]

1 if the Paynim were just randomly passing by and the PCs successfully hide, then the Paynim have no reason to to stop and thus carry on.

2 The DM decides the Paynim decide to look around - in DnD passive perception might get consulted. Ask the PCs what they are doing while the Paynim are looking around…

3 if the Paynim are suspicious they investigate - roll Investigate. Ask the PCs what they are doing while the Paynim investigate…

Where do 1, 2 and 3 come from? There's no rule in Rolemaster that establishes them. RM has rules for random encounters, but they don't say any of these things.

Furthermore, how do we know if the PCs successfully hide? How is this determined? Canonically in RM it involves comparing rolls using (say) Camouflage and (say) Locate Hidden. What roll is made for the latter? How close does a given nomad with a given Locate Hidden bonus pass to the camouflaged area (that distance affects the Locate Hidden roll)?

Etc.

 

[soviet]

Looking at my 1985 copy of Character and Campaign Law, on p102 there are a bunch of modifiers for an encounter avoidance roll which is opposed by an activity roll (read: spot check) from the opposing side. It's certainly not well signposted but it is there.

EDIT: This is in all the actual Campaign Law stuff, which I think was moved to a GM book in later editions.