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

[Tonguez]

These posts present themselves as in some sort of disagreement with the OP, but to me they seem to be agreeing with it, in so far as both suggest adding something besides granular resolution and setting => situation.

Not really, they are saying that given the encounter as written in OP, we need more information. Such information can come from prior play, from the games “fiction”, or from DM fiat/fortune roll.
Answering the question - Why did the Paynim show up now? Provides the information thats needed to resolve the situation.

 

[Lanefan]

You have demonstrated the crappiness of the situation quite well. Your best recommendation is for the GM to play a dice game against himself, or else just decide arbitrarily.

Perhaps, but see below...

This is not how SCs work in 4e. There's no such thing as NPCs running an SC. Nor does the GM roll dice in one.

As I noted, just after suggesting it as an option I tossed it for this reason.

So there IS a valid question here when approaching this in a narrative sense, the resolution systems are entirely focused on what the PCs do to interact with the world.

Which is fine, but here we're trying to determine what the NPCs do to interact with the world; completely independent of the PCs until and unless the NPCs become aware of the PCs' presence. So yes indeed, if it turns out the riders never do discover the PCs the GM might have had to run a very quick side game with him-herself in order to determine this; in the end narrating only that the riders eventually move along.

Certainly NPCs react, and maybe in fairly complex ways, but for resolution to proceed the players have to make a 'move'. There are a few ways to sort this, but I think the main ones are going to alter the granularity of the situation. This is a hallmark of narrative system play.

And if the players' "move" is to Do Nothing and let external events proceed as they will, then what?

 

[Lanefan]

It's already established that there is an encounter with nomads. So a system for determining whether or not an encounter occurs - ie that generates modifiers to the Standard Encounter Chart - is unhelpful.

Is the encounter yet established, though, or merely the potential for one?

Seems to me you could run this process twice in this situation: once to determine the potential for an encounter (do any nomads pass by the area while the PCs are present) and then again to determine whether an encounter in fact occurs (do the nomads discover the PCs).

 

[pemerton]

Answering the question - Why did the Paynim show up now? Provides the information thats needed to resolve the situation.

Well 30 years later I don't remember the details of that. It could have been a random encounter roll. It could have been a GM decision that it would be fun to have the nomads show up.

I don't think this changes the fact that the process of granular resolution, in which situation is extracted from setting, didn't work.

By way of reiteration: a single Detect Essence spell used to scan the cover over the pit will reveal something is amiss. With dozens or hundreds of nomads, what is the chance that anNPC knows that spell, casts it, and scans the appropriate area? And how would working that out make the resolution exciting?

 

[Tonguez]

Well 30 years later I don't remember the details of that. It could have been a random encounter roll. It could have been a GM decision that it would be fun to have the nomads show up.

I don't think this changes the fact that the process of granular resolution, in which situation is extracted from setting, didn't work.

By way of reiteration: a single Detect Essence spell used to scan the cover over the pit will reveal something is amiss. With dozens or hundreds of nomads, what is the chance that anNPC knows that spell, casts it, and scans the appropriate area? And how would working that out make the resolution exciting?

It wouldnt but then if it was just a random passing fox why would it bother to investigate either?
The resolution of the encounter was the PCs successfully hiding, they did it. Encounter is over, go to the next one.

Though I do assume the cover spell has a duration? Which means the PCs are on the clock -the next scene has two complications 1. Passing Paynim and 2. No more cover...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

so in my mind things are rolling out like:
Scene: PCs arrive at Tovag Baragu Standing Stones, dig a pit and start searching.
complication: Paynim horsemen arrive (Paynim consider the place sacred, dont like outsiders)

Actually I like yours. Its got a very story focused flow to it. The way the initial scene is set is exactly how it might look in, say, Dungeon World. The PCs show up, lets say they're teleporting in, and the wizard gets a 7, there's a complication! Guess what, the Paynims are here, woops!

- As a Player I’d be asking: Isnt this place supposed to be an isolated wasteland? Why have the Paynim come now? Were we spotted or are they just passing through?
What we dont know from OP is what are the motivations of the NPCs and without knowing its not really possible to say much about what they’ll do. If its just random then they have no reason to search, resolve it as such

There'd be no reason for a player to ask these sorts of questions in a DW game, its generally a low myth type of game, and given that the PCs went to a Paynim area, what else would they expect but Paynims? We don't NEED motivations in order to position them here, although obviously NPC motives will figure into whatever comes next. It isn't really up to the GM to necessarily provide those however. In fact the next thing I'd imagine a PC would do is Discern Realities and try to get that answered. Assuming the player rolls at least a 7+ they will not only require the GM to answer that question (or a closely related one at the very least) but they'll get a point of forward bonus to whatever they do with that info.

PC response: We use a spell to cover the pit so it looks like normal sand and hope they move on.
DM: okay your spell is a success*, the pit is covered and the horesmen move on
*use suitably dramatic narrative

This could definitely follow. After the DD check the Paynim are definitely moving closer, maybe they're a patrol, professionally watchful, but not necessarily suspecting anything specific at this point (this gives the GM some rope he can use later to ratchet up the tension). So the wizard casts an illusion or something to hide the pit/party. Now, if the check is a 10+ there's a pretty good chance the Paynims move on.

if the DM wants to provide a bit more tension then - “the Horsemen ride by the pit, you hear the ring of their hooves as they pass over the hard cover beneath the sand. A couple of horses become skittish and pull away…”

Its how the narrative is handled that creates excitement regardless of how the scene is set, but overall in this case it seems that the PCs successfully casting the spell to cover the pit is the resolution to the scene.
We can now move to the next scene which is either “Searching the Pit“ or “Foiling the Paynim” (Players choice)

Well, in classic DW play the GM could continue to do stuff with this scene, I guess some color is OK, but since all the mechanics are transparent and player facing it is just that, color. I don't have a problem with that at all. However, the GM isn't obliged to move on NECESSARILY. For example, he could announce a bit of unwelcome news, the Paynims have decided to camp nearby!

Edit: Okay Maxperson did a much better example using a suitably dramatic narrative

I will simply note that, as a past master of the classic and trad styles of GMing I can state with total certainty that you will get a higher proportion of interesting and exciting play out of modern techniques. I rather regret that I can't tell my 1992 alter ego about it, as something like what we've been doing in 4e was exactly what was needed in our games back then.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yep, and I've seen the player who just makes a check using one of their really good skills to get a success/ not disappoint the other players, while not really moving the fiction forward in any appreciable way ...

DMG P74 "Other times, a player will say, “I want to make a Diplomacy check.” In such a case, prompt the player to give more information about how the character is using that skill."

Couple that with this on P75: "However, it’s particularly important to make sure these checks are grounded in actions that make sense in the adventure and the situation. If a player asks, “Can I use Diplomacy?” you should ask what exactly the character might be doing to help the party survive in the uninhabited sandy wastes by using that skill. Don’t say no too often, but don’t say yes if it doesn’t make sense in the context of the challenge."

I think between them these make clear that the player MUST describe the ACTION which the check covers, and must describe it in a way that allows it to be related to pushing the narrative forward within the context of the current fiction.

I'd also note that SCs actually have a specific mechanism for "stuff that might be useful but doesn't move things forward", these are discussed on Page 76 in the first section "Skill Checks" where it is explained that not every check has to involve changing the success/failure tally of the challenge, they can have other minor benefits. This allows players to come up with useful things to do that don't advance the fiction towards its conclusion. Often they provide a bonus to a later check, or cancel out a bad effect caused by a failure, something like that. They could also unlock another skill, or provide access to a resource which could be useful.

... while participating in 4e Adventurer's League so battle of anecdotes and all that.

Sure, but annecdotes or not, the GM who allows a skill check without a defined action description, purpose within the fiction, and logic that moves the challenge forward towards success, and then counts that check on the success/fail tally, is not doing a good job of running Skill Challenges.

Either way I think it illustrates that they aren't the same thing though they can be explicitly tied together if the rules make the effort to enforce that.

I think they are what I've said they are. I grant you that the description in DMG1 is a mass of verbiage which largely fails to properly emphasize the key points and provides examples which are mostly bad (I will avoid more pointed language on that one). DMG2 and the Rules Compendium vastly improve the description, tighten up the definitions, and even introduce some formal terminology and process to deal with things like checks that contribute but don't move things forward, etc. Honestly, even the RC version IMHO still isn't quite at the level of say what @Manbearcat has posted The Slave and Her Sovereign here, but its still a solid description. Definitely if you follow the rules in the RC things will move forward at each check! There should ALMOST never be a situation where the PCs can keep doing the same thing over and over and get closer to winning (or losing). I only say 'almost' because I can kind of imagine some ways to construct a corner case, maybe.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO. It’s a bit ironic that 4e skill challenges get a pass for not spelling out the ‘obvious’ when in most other instances a game receives no such pass.

I mean the very premise of this thread is ‘here’s a situation rolemaster doesn’t tell you what to do next’ and all the counter responses are saying, what you do next should be obvious.

Well, come now, in 4e it is CLEAR that we can (IMHO should) run a Skill Challenge at this point, and then once the complexity is chosen (5 is pretty obvious for a full up encounter) we are off to the races! OTOH you guys are all over there deciding all the minutia of how many Paynims it is, and if they come close, and how suspicious are they or not which will determine which rolls need to be made and what the results mean. I don't need to decide any of that in the SC! I mean, I do need to assign some possible skills (though honestly I am of the opinion its not really necessary most of the time). Yes, SCs DMG1 rules require careful reading, but OTOH simple logical thinking about how it could successfully work will point out all the stuff like "the scene has to move towards success or failure every time a check is made." I understand that some people might not be experienced GMs and miss that. I'm not holding the thing out as better written than other games. I am simply saying it INHERENTLY answers a lot of the basic questions, simply by assuming "yes there's a conflict, and we're going to roll dice this many times and no more to resolve it." Just that much alone is ahead of many other systems, including every other edition or version of D&D (I'll accept that I don't know diddly about PF2e, but I think its diverged pretty heavily at this point).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That system is analogous to the Stealth check in 5e D&D to avoid an encounter roll. It doesn't resolve hiding from nomads who have turned up by conjuring a cover over one's pit.

Here is the relevant text (p 134 of my copy of C&CL, and it is also found on p 149 of the RMSS GM Law):

1) Avoidance roll — the PC group makes a “avoidance” dice roll and applies the appropriate modifiers to get an adjusted result;
2) Activity roll — the GM then makes an “activity” roll and applies the proper modifiers to get an adjusted result;
3) Roll comparison — the GM compares the two adjusted rolls;
4) Negative differential — if the avoidance roll exceeds the activity roll there is a negative differential and no chance of an encounter and the table is not used, and any pursuit is thrown off or avoided. This may be modified due to an unusual circumstance, or if there is a tracker in the pursuing group.
5) Positive differential — if the activity roll exceeds the avoidance roll there is a positive differential and the Standard Encounter Chart is consulted.​

The Avoidance Roll modifiers include adjustments for speed and mode of travel (going more quickly makes you more likely to be noticed; the adjustment for flying and for sailing is listed as "variable"), for night time (this makes you less likely to be noticed) and for camping (this makes you more likely to be noticed). The adjustment for "Spells employed" is "variable".

The Activity Roll modifiers include terrain and weather adjustments (the clearer these are, the harder it is to avoid an encounter), literal activity adjustments (eg +100 to the roll if a hue and cry has been raised), and adjustments for night time that are sensitive to the difference in this respect between humans and Orcs. For "Spells", the adjustment is "variable".

That system is not useful for resolving the scene I described in the OP.

Well.... OK, so it DOES provide a structure, which is not a bad thing. In that sense it fulfills the basic part of the 4e SC, by defining a number and type of checks that will resolve the situation (or maybe not completely resolve it, I am not going to break out my RM books to read up on it all). Anyway, from there we do run into the need to decide various situational aspects, and somehow figure out what the 'variable' effect of a spell is. Now, maybe there's something fundamentally assumed that makes the whole thing not work, but my guess is you can do a fairly literal application. When compared with the 4e SC approach, I'd also have to decide some things as the GM, like which skills are in scope (primary and secondary, the complexity, and probably have SOME idea of where the action might lead so I can narrate results of checks).

Now, 4e does have some nice helpers, like the fact that I know all the PCs skill bonuses, the DCs are all set automatically (almost) etc. The RM system in question is probably a bit less adaptable to every situation. In fact this IMHO is the main advantage of games like 4e with a generalized process. The GM doesn't have to sit down and figure which of the many subsystems and approaches that are available is going to apply, or if it is none at all. PbtA is even stronger here! You WILL go through the play loop adjudicating moves, there simply is no other choice!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Which is fine, but here we're trying to determine what the NPCs do to interact with the world; completely independent of the PCs until and unless the NPCs become aware of the PCs' presence. So yes indeed, if it turns out the riders never do discover the PCs the GM might have had to run a very quick side game with him-herself in order to determine this; in the end narrating only that the riders eventually move along.

Yeah, I don't understand the whole fascination that some people have with applying rules that are meant to produce narrative and explore fiction when applied by PCs being applied AT ALL by NPCs. I honestly confess, even in my early days as a GM I never did that or thought it would be a good idea. So, I wouldn't consider that kind of thing as a very good option, myself. The game is about the PCs and the players telling me what they do, etc.

And if the players' "move" is to Do Nothing and let external events proceed as they will, then what?

Right, which is why I posit that something has to happen, the players have to do something, or encounter some consequence that will move the situation along at some point. Now in Dungeon World the GM can simply make a move if the players essentially 'forfeit' theirs, and this is an explicitly described situation. It COULD also fall under 'Golden Opportunity', which is a rule where if a player describes a course of action which clearly ignores potential danger, then the GM is free to bring it down on them even if they DO describe some other unrelated action. Like if I tell you a dragon is flying your way and you then describe to me how you unroll your picnic blanket, guess who's going to show up for tea?!

Bringing it back to this case, I think I suggested maybe just having the Paynims camp nearby might be a fairly neutral 'soft move' kind of action. I'd consider this if the PCs simply don't do anything. Now they can either try to keep digging discretely, try to leave unobserved, or whatever. It has the virtue of leaving things at a relatively low level of tension, providing plenty of room to ramp things up again. It would be a pacing thing though. If things need to be kicked up a notch, just have them find the PCs, that's a PERFECTLY legitimate move!

 

[pemerton]

Well.... OK, so it DOES provide a structure, which is not a bad thing. In that sense it fulfills the basic part of the 4e SC, by defining a number and type of checks that will resolve the situation (or maybe not completely resolve it, I am not going to break out my RM books to read up on it all).

All it does is tell us whether or not Paynims turn up. Once they turn up, it says nothing about what they do, whether they find the hidden PCs, etc.

Part of the reason for this is that it is based around a setting => situation model: that is, it takes setting input (terrain, weather, general attitude of the population, etc) and feeds that into the likelihood of a random encounter with a setting-appropriate being (or beings). But it doesn't take PC goal into account at all. So, for instance, it doesn't differentiate between (say) Frodo and Sam hoping not to get discovered by the marching soldiers at the Black Gate and (say) Aragorn declaring himself to Emoer and his riders, announcing his lineage and thus establishing a firm alliance (beginning with the loan of horses).

So it can tell you whether or not Easterlings or Rohirrim (or Paynim nomads) turn up in the PCs vicinity, but doesn't tell us whether or not they spot the PCs, or look for them, or any of the things that are actually central to resolving the situation described in the OP.

The RM system in question is probably a bit less adaptable to every situation.

I GMed RM for nearly 20 years - hundreds of sessions, thousands of hours. The system is not only "a bit less adaptable", it's virtually worthless. It's lack of utility begins with "variable" for spells and "this may be modified due to an unusual circumstance, or if there is a tracker in the pursuing group" and only grows from there.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All it does is tell us whether or not Paynims turn up. Once they turn up, it says nothing about what they do, whether they find the hidden PCs, etc.

Part of the reason for this is that it is based around a setting => situation model: that is, it takes setting input (terrain, weather, general attitude of the population, etc) and feeds that into the likelihood of a random encounter with a setting-appropriate being (or beings). But it doesn't take PC goal into account at all. So, for instance, it doesn't differentiate between (say) Frodo and Sam hoping not to get discovered by the marching soldiers at the Black Gate and (say) Aragorn declaring himself to Emoer and his riders, announcing his lineage and thus establishing a firm alliance (beginning with the loan of horses).

So it can tell you whether or not Easterlings or Rohirrim (or Paynim nomads) turn up in the PCs vicinity, but doesn't tell us whether or not they spot the PCs, or look for them, or any of the things that are actually central to resolving the situation described in the OP.

Ah, OK, so I assumed there was some sort of 'evasion' aspect to it. In 1e AD&D at the start of an encounter there's a decision point where each side declares 'evade', 'fight', or 'parley'. Admittedly the 1e evade rules don't contemplate evasion by means of stealth, it really doesn't have a way to handle that sort of tactic, except maybe extrapolating surprise, but I was under the impression Arms/Character Law did have something like that.

I GMed RM for nearly 20 years - hundreds of sessions, thousands of hours. The system is not only "a bit less adaptable", it's virtually worthless. It's lack of utility begins with "variable" for spells and "this may be modified due to an unusual circumstance, or if there is a tracker in the pursuing group" and only grows from there.

Right, there will always be SOME 'fill in the blanks here' in any system of course.

Anyway, my spin is that narrative focus systems of the PbtA, FitD, or even Torchbearer (I don't know if that can be extrapolated to BW generally) variety all have a 'generalized conflict resolver' kind of setup (BW/TB have several flavors you can sometimes choose from).

 

[FrogReaver]

These posts present themselves as in some sort of disagreement with the OP, but to me they seem to be agreeing with it, in so far as both suggest adding something besides granular resolution and setting => situation.

Ah, but we see what we are adding as an obviously implied part of the granular resolution.

 

[FrogReaver]

It's already established that there is an encounter with nomads. So a system for determining whether or not an encounter occurs - ie that generates modifiers to the Standard Encounter Chart - is unhelpful.

If you aren't using those rules for establishing whether the encounter occurs, then what rules did you consult to determine the encounter occurred?

Followup question - what is meant by 'encounter' in RM?

 

[FrogReaver]

The OP is an example of how setting => situation doesn't work. And how granular resolution doesn't work.

If you're saying that we have to adapt the rules away from granular resolution; and that the GM stipulates and manages the situation independent of setting, then aren't you agreeing with the OP?

Um, adapting the rules does not imply adapting them away from granular resolution...

 

[FrogReaver]

That system is analogous to the Stealth check in 5e D&D to avoid an encounter roll. It doesn't resolve hiding from nomads who have turned up by conjuring a cover over one's pit.

Here is the relevant text (p 134 of my copy of C&CL, and it is also found on p 149 of the RMSS GM Law):

1) Avoidance roll — the PC group makes a “avoidance” dice roll and applies the appropriate modifiers to get an adjusted result;​

2) Activity roll — the GM then makes an “activity” roll and applies the proper modifiers to get an adjusted result;​

3) Roll comparison — the GM compares the two adjusted rolls;​

4) Negative differential — if the avoidance roll exceeds the activity roll there is a negative differential and no chance of an encounter and the table is not used, and any pursuit is thrown off or avoided. This may be modified due to an unusual circumstance, or if there is a tracker in the pursuing group.​

5) Positive differential — if the activity roll exceeds the avoidance roll there is a positive differential and the Standard Encounter Chart is consulted.​

The Avoidance Roll modifiers include adjustments for speed and mode of travel (going more quickly makes you more likely to be noticed; the adjustment for flying and for sailing is listed as "variable"), for night time (this makes you less likely to be noticed) and for camping (this makes you more likely to be noticed). The adjustment for "Spells employed" is "variable".

The Activity Roll modifiers include terrain and weather adjustments (the clearer these are, the harder it is to avoid an encounter), literal activity adjustments (eg +100 to the roll if a hue and cry has been raised), and adjustments for night time that are sensitive to the difference in this respect between humans and Orcs. For "Spells", the adjustment is "variable".

That system is not useful for resolving the scene I described in the OP.

Agreed, such a system would have no bearing on the situation in the OP.

Yet, a granular system is either going to have a general system that covers hiding, a specific system that covers hiding or have assumptions baked into it's encounter mechanics that imply starting an encounter means you've been spotted - or at least should have one of those things given how often hiding to avoid an encounter can come up . If it doesn't have anything like I just described then that would imply a fault with a specific system itself, but not as a general point against granular resolution based on setting methodologies.

 

[MarkB]

It's already established that there is an encounter with nomads. So a system for determining whether or not an encounter occurs - ie that generates modifiers to the Standard Encounter Chart - is unhelpful.

I don't get it. If it's already been established that an encounter occurs, then presumably the parties are aware of each other and the possibility of hiding no longer applies.

If the parties are not yet aware of each other, then you haven't established that an encounter will occur and can use the avoidance/activity system to determine whether it does.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't get it. If it's already been established that an encounter occurs, then presumably the parties are aware of each other and the possibility of hiding no longer applies.

If the parties are not yet aware of each other, then you haven't established that an encounter will occur and can use the avoidance/activity system to determine whether it does.

I take him to mean that the avoidance/encounter rules are just for 'travel'. It would be like applying the D&D rules for random encounters while traveling to resolve whether an encounter occurs within a dungeon.

At least if I'm understanding correctly.

 

[MarkB]

I take him to mean that the avoidance/encounter rules are just for 'travel'. It would be like applying the D&D rules for random encounters while traveling to resolve whether an encounter occurs within a dungeon.

At least if I'm understanding correctly.

Okay, but he described the mechanic as being analogous to a D&D stealth check.

If the system provides the possibility of an encounter occurring in which the parties are not mutually aware of each other, but provides no resolution mechanic for stealth/detection once that scenario has been established, that sounds like a deficiency in this specific system rather than in the nature of granular resolution mechanics in general.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, but he described the mechanic as being analogous to a D&D stealth check.

If the system provides the possibility of an encounter occurring in which the parties are not mutually aware of each other, but provides no resolution mechanic for stealth/detection once that scenario has been established, that sounds like a deficiency in this specific system rather than in the nature of granular resolution mechanics in general.

Agreed, that's the worst case conclusion. I strongly suspect that the RM either has something for that situation that's been overlooked and if that's not the case then my next suspicion is that it's not designed for encounters to occur where the NPC's are not aware of the PC's.