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

[FrogReaver]

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.

Fortune rolls are not playing a dice game against yourself…

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's not all that hard to figure out.



They are in a desert and have come to these stones. There would be fresh tracks in the area, but none leading away. So the answers to "Is it metagaming for them to be suspicious?" and "Do they search from something hidden?" and "would they even do that?" would be dependent on whether or not they notice the suspicious tracks.

I'm sure Rolemaster had some sort of perception process. Success and the nomads notice the tracks and become suspicious. Then they would search the area, and there's probably a process for noticing the magic or other way to find the PCs.

As for drama, that's up to how the DM describes the above processes and their results.

Are there such tracks? None of this is spelled out at all! The whole thing is pure DM fiat with a thin veneer of referring back to the rules after setting all the inputs as the GM desires.

In fact, oddly, a system with much LESS rules detail is better. Imagine Dungeon World. You travel to the place, and the GM gets a move. Some Paynims appear! Defy Danger to not be caught by them (maybe replaced by a wizard, thief, etc custom move). No questions ever arise about which mechanics to use, etc.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

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.

 

[Maxperson]

Are there such tracks? None of this is spelled out at all! The whole thing is pure DM fiat with a thin veneer of referring back to the rules after setting all the inputs as the GM desires.

Yes of course there are and it doesn't have to be spelled out. Unless some sort of exception was made like Pass Without Trace(and he didn't say that there was), they arrived in sand and walked around at least a little bit since they obviously didn't create a pit directly beneath them and fall into it, taking damage. @pemerton didn't describe that happening, either.

It's not at all fiat. Like not even a smidge. You can infer it because it must have happened according to the information we were given.

In fact, oddly, a system with much LESS rules detail is better. Imagine Dungeon World. You travel to the place, and the GM gets a move. Some Paynims appear! Defy Danger to not be caught by them (maybe replaced by a wizard, thief, etc custom move). No questions ever arise about which mechanics to use, etc.

Not better. Not worse, either. Just different. Both games can generate drama. Both can be fun to play. Both can do what needs to be done in this situation that was described.

 

[pemerton]

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.

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.

 

[pemerton]

The DM. You established the Paynim were there (unsure whether by Fiat or Process but it really doesn’t matter.). I’ll assume you rolled for a random encounter

As you keep on noting - Establishing they are there is simply not enough. You stop there and say see the rules don’t work, we keep wondering why you arbitrarily stop at establishing they are there without also establishing why - which would have prevented the issue you are raising.


Once you know why they are there you can then determine how close they likely get - worst case scenario you use some kind of a fortune roll to determine that for you.

The DM is capable of creating a process to determine what happens next. It doesn't need to be "a process established by the game" or "a DM fiat decision."

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.

 

[MarkB]

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.

It sounds well suited to it. The DM needs to determine the adjustment that's required for using a spell that provides total cover, and it sounds like no other adjustments would be applicable, so the players make their roll and add the adjustment for the spell.

Then the DM determines what modifiers would apply to the nomads depending upon the circumstances and they make their activity roll.

What's not useful?

 

[Baron Opal II]

Well, it has been a while since I've played Rolemaster, but I remember it as a more finely granular game than D&D.

Tension isn't derived by a single role, but by give and take. I am really surprised that you had no indication or guidance what so ever to use some kind of perception check, masonry skill, stealth check, magic skill to blend the cover with the edge of the pit, &c. as part of the back and forth.

The characters put themselves in a situation where their desire for an object or information put them in (potential) conflict with guardians. Much like the hobbits hiding from the nazgul, there didn't seem to be too many steps. There the hobbits made a successful Perception (strangely scary guy on horse coming this way), a partially successful hide (under the tree), the nazgul senses the ring triggering a complication (the nearness of fell might causes a Will test for Frodo to put on the ring; he succeeds), and then the nazgul rides off. You narrate the push and pull of the nazgul searching for his prey and the hobbits adapting to not be found.

This would work in D&D, Rolemaster, Fate, what-have-you. You adapt the rules to the situation. (c.f. custom car creed)

 

[pemerton]

It sounds well suited to it. The DM needs to determine the adjustment that's required for using a spell that provides total cover, and it sounds like no other adjustments would be applicable, so the players make their roll and add the adjustment for the spell.

Then the DM determines what modifiers would apply to the nomads depending upon the circumstances and they make their activity roll.

What's not useful?

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.

 

[pemerton]

The characters put themselves in a situation where their desire for an object or information put them in (potential) conflict with guardians. Much like the hobbits hiding from the nazgul, there didn't seem to be too many steps. There the hobbits made a successful Perception (strangely scary guy on horse coming this way), a partially successful hide (under the tree), the nazgul senses the ring triggering a complication (the nearness of fell might causes a Will test for Frodo to put on the ring; he succeeds), and then the nazgul rides off. You narrate the push and pull of the nazgul searching for his prey and the hobbits adapting to not be found.

I've bolded one key word - might. How is that resolved into does or does not?

As far as the "narration of push and pull" is concerned, what does that literally mean at the table? GM monologue? The making of rolls, and if so which ones and how many?

This would work in D&D, Rolemaster, Fate, what-have-you. You adapt the rules to the situation. (c.f. custom car creed)

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?