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

[AbdulAlhazred]

I’m not talking about a single example where it works. I’m talking about it always working with the game.

I would contend that Dungeon World 'always works'. Its a simple loop of play, the GM describes a situation, and then asks the players "what do you do now?" If no player wants to declare a character action (always in character, you never name a move) then the GM makes a move, usually a soft one. If a player does declare some action, then their character does that, assuming nobody at the table thinks its impossible or genre breaking, etc. and noting that players don't have an arbitrary remit to just make something up (IE a piece of equipment or an NPC or whatever). The GM now decides if this action is a formal 'move' or not. If not, then the PCs carries out the action. If it is a move, then the rules for that move are followed. Once the action is resolved, the GM may describe any additional new fiction if it is needed (maybe an entirely new scene) or simply ask for more player actions, possibly naming a specific character who should get a chance to act next, or just an open invitation. Again, if nothing happens and nobody acts, the GM once again makes a move.

Now, there can be some mechanical grey space there. Is an action a move? Which one? There are some fairly generic moves, like 'Defy Danger' that GMs could probably apply in a LOT of situations, but its subjective. The GM introduces most of the actual present fiction of scenes, so has a lot of leeway there, but as I said in an earlier post, must use the agenda and principles when doing this. The point is, there's always some sort of clear forward way that the game can proceed without any mechanical problem. You never need to make up rules in DW, although GMs CAN declare a new kind of move, like if a PC got a holding you could have them check for income or send out patrols, etc. So, my perception of Dungeon World is that there's really no point where it can 'fail to work' in the sense that someone has to make up a new game process to cover a situation that was not considered by the rules.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not sure what "adapting" means here.

Even if I apply those rules (as I probably did, though the 30 year gap in time means I don't remember any more), as I've posted upthread decisions need to be made about skill bonuses, degree of concentration, distance from the camouflaged pit, etc. And those decisions are largely dispositive of the outcome.

Adapting means adapting the existing rules to make them fit better. So if the rules were intended for dungeon use and don't translate well to outdoor, you probably need to modify them a bit to make them fit outdoor use. You aren't re-inventing the wheel. You're just giving the wheel better rims and maybe a bit more air to let it roll better.

 

[pemerton]

Adapting means adapting the existing rules to make them fit better. So if the rules were intended for dungeon use and don't translate well to outdoor, you probably need to modify them a bit to make them fit outdoor use.

I don't know what this means, in practical terms. If the difference between being 10' away and being 100' away is +/-30 (on the d100 roll), then how do I (as GM) decide whether or not a nomad comes within 10'? If it affects the roll (ie makes it easier to succeed) if a nomad dismounts, how I decide if a nomad dismounts? Particularly a nomad who is close to the pit?

The real issue here, to my mind, is that a system that is designed for resolving individuals looking for hidden things in relatively close quarters is simply not well-suited for resolving a multitude of people being in the general vicinity of a hidden thing which they might find.

RM has a solution for this problem when it comes to combat: War Law is a wargame-type system for RM, comparable to using Chainmail or Spells & Swords in classic D&D, or Battle System or War Machine in 80s or 90s D&D.

But it doesn't have a comparable solution for the scenario I described in the OP.

Whether such a system would solve the excitement problem I don't know. My experiences with War Law, admittedly limited, didn't produce that much exciting play.

 

[Lanefan]

I don't know what this means, in practical terms. If the difference between being 10' away and being 100' away is +/-30 (on the d100 roll), then how do I (as GM) decide whether or not a nomad comes within 10'? If it affects the roll (ie makes it easier to succeed) if a nomad dismounts, how I decide if a nomad dismounts? Particularly a nomad who is close to the pit?

Random roll, based on whatever odds seem reasonable to you-as-GM at the time when thinking about what makes those nomads tick.

This is one where you pretty much just have to wing it; though some systems might give guidelines, no system is going to go into that much hard-coded rules detail. Which is fine; unless the rulebooks rival the Encyclopedia Britannica in size, corner cases will always arise where a GM just has to make up something bespoke to that specific situation and go with it.

That said, pulling back from granular resolution to something that sorts it at a more macro level e.g. a single 4e-like skill challenge IMO isn't the answer, and would likely dilute the at-table tension significantly.

The real issue here, to my mind, is that a system that is designed for resolving individuals looking for hidden things in relatively close quarters is simply not well-suited for resolving a multitude of people being in the general vicinity of a hidden thing which they might find.

What happens if you treat that multitude of people as if it was an individual, or a few individuals, looking for a hidden thing? In other words, batch them into a group (or a few groups) for purposes of resolving this. And instead of "close quarters", decide or determine how big an area they intend to search and make that the "room" for purposes of resolution, and then just use the system that's already given. That would, it seems, sort things as seen from the NPC side.

The unpredictable variable, however, is that what's being searched for is not a simple object in a static place but is itself mobile, intelligent, and capable of independent action; which potentially turns what would otherwise be a fairly simple yes-no search into more of a cat-and-mouse affair. Maybe after each time the PCs do something that materially changes their situation or discoverability (e.g. move, split apart, make excessive noise, etc.) the NPCs get to repeat their search-the-"room" sequence at a penalty?

Heh - and meanwhile the same search-the-room sequence could be playing out for the PCs as they quietly search for whatever it was that they initially came here to find.

 

[pemerton]

Random roll, based on whatever odds seem reasonable to you-as-GM at the time when thinking about what makes those nomads tick.

This is one where you pretty much just have to wing it; though some systems might give guidelines, no system is going to go into that much hard-coded rules detail. Which is fine; unless the rulebooks rival the Encyclopedia Britannica in size, corner cases will always arise where a GM just has to make up something bespoke to that specific situation and go with it.

This appears to be agreeing with the OP, that in this sort of scenario granular resolution doesn't work.

What happens if you treat that multitude of people as if it was an individual, or a few individuals, looking for a hidden thing? In other words, batch them into a group (or a few groups) for purposes of resolving this. And instead of "close quarters", decide or determine how big an area they intend to search and make that the "room" for purposes of resolution, and then just use the system that's already given. That would, it seems, sort things as seen from the NPC side.

I don't know what would happen, because you have to show me what this actually means in play. For instance, to use 3E D&D language, would a group of people relatively keen to search always get to "take 20"? That changes the odds of things quite a bit.

Or does a large group get in one another's way? The RM rules, written to be applied to small groups of PCs, don't canvass this issue. Does that mean it's a non-issue as we scale up?

That said, pulling back from granular resolution to something that sorts it at a more macro level e.g. a single 4e-like skill challenge IMO isn't the answer, and would likely dilute the at-table tension significantly.

In my actual play experience, there is far more tension in something like a 4e-style skill challenge, or Torchbearer-style conflict, than the GM deciding it all via fiat and/or random rolls.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would contend that Dungeon World 'always works'. Its a simple loop of play, the GM describes a situation, and then asks the players "what do you do now?" If no player wants to declare a character action (always in character, you never name a move) then the GM makes a move, usually a soft one. If a player does declare some action, then their character does that, assuming nobody at the table thinks its impossible or genre breaking, etc. and noting that players don't have an arbitrary remit to just make something up (IE a piece of equipment or an NPC or whatever). The GM now decides if this action is a formal 'move' or not. If not, then the PCs carries out the action. If it is a move, then the rules for that move are followed. Once the action is resolved, the GM may describe any additional new fiction if it is needed (maybe an entirely new scene) or simply ask for more player actions, possibly naming a specific character who should get a chance to act next, or just an open invitation. Again, if nothing happens and nobody acts, the GM once again makes a move.

At the level of resolution that you describe Dungeon World in here, the play loop for D&D 5e looks identical.

Now, there can be some mechanical grey space there. Is an action a move? Which one? There are some fairly generic moves, like 'Defy Danger' that GMs could probably apply in a LOT of situations, but its subjective. The GM introduces most of the actual present fiction of scenes, so has a lot of leeway there, but as I said in an earlier post, must use the agenda and principles when doing this. The point is, there's always some sort of clear forward way that the game can proceed without any mechanical problem. You never need to make up rules in DW, although GMs CAN declare a new kind of move, like if a PC got a holding you could have them check for income or send out patrols, etc. So, my perception of Dungeon World is that there's really no point where it can 'fail to work' in the sense that someone has to make up a new game process to cover a situation that was not considered by the rules.

Which brings us back around to my point - This is also true of at least 5e D&D. Maybe the older games that I've never played like RM or AD&D 1e really don't have a generalized mechanical process like 5e ability checks for dealing with anything not spelled out elsewhere. I don't know that I believe that's true, and I ain't got nothing to stand on but gut and intution, but I know for a fact it's true of 5e.

Let me be clear and mince no words - granular resolution always works in D&D 5e. Which is proof by exmaple that there's nothing inherently faulty with granular resolution. Which is if I'm not mistaken this threads premise.

 

[pemerton]

@FrogReaver, in what sense are ability checks used in the way you are describing granular resolution? They don't depend upon tight measurement of time. They don't depend upon tight measurement of space. They don't depend up setting => situation either - as per @AnotherGuy's post upthread, the GM has all sorts of licence to frame the situation by reference to considerations like pacing, spotlight, difficulty etc.

At the level of abstraction you're describing, they don't seem any different from simple contest resolution in Prince Valiant or HeroWars/Quest.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

At the level of resolution that you describe Dungeon World in here, the play loop for D&D 5e looks identical.


Which brings us back around to my point - This is also true of at least 5e D&D. Maybe the older games that I've never played like RM or AD&D 1e really don't have a generalized mechanical process like 5e ability checks for dealing with anything not spelled out elsewhere. I don't know that I believe that's true, and I ain't got nothing to stand on but gut and intution, but I know for a fact it's true of 5e.

Let me be clear and mince no words - granular resolution always works in D&D 5e. Which is proof by exmaple that there's nothing inherently faulty with granular resolution. Which is if I'm not mistaken this threads premise.

OK, 5e does have an ability check system, which is a pretty generalized action resolution mechanic. However, you still need a procedure for dealing with a given situation, how far can you jump, etc. right? In cases where the rules don't detail that, you need to invent it when that situation comes up. In DW you do need to be able to say "oh, you rolled 6-, well such-and-such happens" and MAYBE "this doesn't seem possible under the circumstances" and the later might perhaps be construed as a 'rule', but it is very unlikely to come attached with the type of quantitative stuff that exists in many D&D rules.

Actually we were just discussing some of this in a thread on 4e today. 4e has these sorts of quantitative little rules attached to skills too. And then it has skill challenges where none of that applies, but you still roll skill checks. This shows very clearly the contrast, the two approaches can actually clash within the same game! The OP of that thread in fact specifically asked about this. So there's very definitely a difference! The 5e version does not 'always work'. I agree you could toss away every vestige of references to things like "how far can I jump?" and then 5e (or 4e) skill/ability checks ARE almost like Dungeon World moves.

But no, you haven't proven your premise at all, IMHO. Its possible to remodel the 5e approach to play to get some of what DW offers in terms of ability checks, but it isn't just there without changing up your approach (and the rules of the game). And for earlier D&Ds it just isn't there at all.

 

[pemerton]

OK, 5e does have an ability check system, which is a pretty generalized action resolution mechanic. However, you still need a procedure for dealing with a given situation, how far can you jump, etc. right?

<snip>

I agree you could toss away every vestige of references to things like "how far can I jump?" and then 5e (or 4e) skill/ability checks ARE almost like Dungeon World moves.

But no, you haven't proven your premise at all, IMHO. Its possible to remodel the 5e approach to play to get some of what DW offers in terms of ability checks, but it isn't just there without changing up your approach (and the rules of the game). And for earlier D&Ds it just isn't there at all.

I made a recent post in another thread that touches on this:

In the context of 5e D&D, the default player-side move is Make an ability check. What is the difficulty? What are the stakes? What are the consequences for failure? All these things are normally under the GM's control, and often are kept secret from the player. If I was playing 5e D&D and wanted to make my play more satisfying, I would look at ways of changing these things. For instance, I might adopt a default DC for skill checks (say, 10+half-level), with one possible consequence for failure being a stepping up the DC of the follow-on check by 5. I would probably also look to be more open about what's at stake - so a check is only called for when someone wants something out of the situation that the adversity in the situation (be that animate or inanimate force) doesn't want to give them.

The obvious challenge in adapting this to 5e is that it quickly leads to contradictions with a setting => situation approach. To avoid those contradictions, you have to sometimes just have the GM say "no" rather than apply the resolution method. At which point we get an obvious difference from the DW "play loop" - sometimes the GM makes a hard move even when no opportunity has been handed on a platter, and even when no check has been failed.

Thus, the rule is no longer "if you do it, you do it". And you get situations where the GM has made a hard move but the players don't know why - because the relevant bit of fiction is hidden - and then play heads in a direction quite different from what would happen in DW.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I'm not sure what you mean by "vague" here. As per the instructions given to GMs in the Scholar's Guide (p 139), part of preparing an adventure scenario in Torchbearer includes coming up with ideas for twists:

Plan Twists​

As you finish planning out your problems and obstacles, try to imagine some of the possible twists that might happen should the characters​

blunder around.​

I assume that you are referring to this [scenario alluded to]

Yes. For some reason I thought the game was Burning Wheel and not Torchbearer.

There is nothing vague about this. The instructions to GMs are clear. I had followed them. A player failed a roll. As per the rules of the game, I (as GM) decided whether to allow success with a condition or impose a twist, and I opted for a twist. Which was Megloss showing up.

At no point was it unclear whose job it is to decide what happens next, nor what parameters govern that decision.

Okay, I see what you mean by it not being vague. There's a one sentence rule that says "in this case, make something up." This rule is explicit in one rulebook and implicit in another. The rule itself is vague- "do something" isn't very specific. But I think I see your point here. However, I find it very difficult to understand how not being explicitly told that the GM needs to do something in a particular instance, especially in the frame of NPC reactions, is a failure of campaign design.

I had hoped that it was clear that by "granular" - particularly in the context of the reference to some earlier threads to which this is a sequel - I meant granular detail with respect to the in-fiction space and time, and the causal process that are unfolding within the fiction. I had hoped that my discussions of spell ranges and durations, the importance of distances to Locate Hidden checks, etc would reinforce that intended meaning.

I see; granular is only specificity of parameters, and not inclusive of the variety of possible outcomes from a given roll or action.

 

[pemerton]

There's a one sentence rule that says "in this case, make something up." This rule is explicit in one rulebook and implicit in another. The rule itself is vague- "do something" isn't very specific. But I think I see your point here. However, I find it very difficult to understand how not being explicitly told that the GM needs to do something in a particular instance, especially in the frame of NPC reactions, is a failure of campaign design.

I'm not sure which rulebook you're saying has an "implicit" twist rule.

There is no implicit rule in RM that, if a PC fails (say) a Perception check, the proper narration of a consequence is that their enemy shows up. In fact, that would be considered pretty outrageous, because it breaks the nexus between then at-the-table process of resolution and the in-the-fiction process of the character looking around.

I also think that there is no such implicit rule in classic D&D, nor in 3E D&D, and I've never seen it suggested that it was an implicit rule in 5e D&D. It is a rule, implicitly stated, in 4e D&D - the example which reveals it but doesn't expressly state it is the skill challenge example in the Rules Compendium (where a failed knowledge check, in relation to an abandoned building, has the consequence that an enemy NPC turns up).

I posted this back in 2012:

When it comes to out-of-combat resolution, the main requirement is to explain to GMs how to resolve the failed checks that will inevitably follow upon players making checks in which their PCs have poor bonuses. Burning Wheel does an excellent job of this. D&D, to date, has done a terrible job. Judging from posts I read around here, the default narration for the dwarf fighter attempting and failing the Diplomacy check is "You open your mouth and spray your spit over the mayor - sucks to dump CHA, I guess!" - and then people complain that their players won't use anything but their biggest numbers!

If the fighter fails the Diplomacy check, then there are any number of ways of narrating that failure without making the PC look like a fool - from "The mayor listens briefly, but then excuses herself to go off to the next meeting" to "Of course the mayor would love to help you, but she swore an oath to her late brother that she would never do XYZ" to "As you begin your address, rain starts to fall, and the mayor's entourage usher her back into the city hall before you can get your point across".

This example, and ones like, it - which is an example of the "twist" approach found in Torchbearer, although back then I was referring to other RPGs that use similar approaches like HeroWars and Burning Wheel - produce responses like "Why does my failed attempt at diplomacy cause it to rain?"

And still do. For instance, you can see references to "Schroedinger's encounter" or "Schroedinger' secret door" very often in posts made in recent threads on these boards.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I'm not sure which rulebook you're saying has an "implicit" twist rule.

I think they all do. It is a possible response to a failed roll. Not every one, but it is a response depending on the situation.

In all of your threads, you contrast two overall schemes: Map-and-Key vs. Narrative. A strength of the Narrative system type is that they are more specific in GM responses when PC characters fail / near miss / "Yes, but", &c. Here is a scheme to turn a failure into a story point. Here is a scheme to allow PC access to meta-currency based on their needs and behaviors. Here is a way to have gradations of success to allow you to introduce interesting narrative complications.

Map-and-Key tend to not have these specific schemes. They are more focused on abilities and rules to overcome challenges. The narrative grows not through deliberate or opportunistic beats but through clever use of mechanics and the vagaries of the dice. In my opinion, the best of these map-and-key games have emergent properties that can be discovered that facilitate play but don't overwhelm it. The difference between an emergent property and an exploit, if you will.

Having defined, or granular if you wish, abilities is not a detriment in of itself. The process of learning how to GM with granular rules could be instructed better, but I think determining how a group of NPCs will react is very close to the process of deciding how a group of PCs would act. Determining how may casters are in a group of NPCs is something the GM will have to derive from what the rules have mentioned and the aspects of worldbuilding / setting construction that apply.

 

[pemerton]

I think they all do. It is a possible response to a failed roll. Not every one, but it is a response depending on the situation.

<snip>

Map-and-Key tend to not have these specific schemes. They are more focused on abilities and rules to overcome challenges. The narrative grows not through deliberate or opportunistic beats but through clever use of mechanics and the vagaries of the dice. In my opinion, the best of these map-and-key games have emergent properties that can be discovered that facilitate play but don't overwhelm it. The difference between an emergent property and an exploit, if you will.

The passages on either side of my <snip> seem to me to be in tension.

I agree that setting => situation play, of which map-and-key is definitely a paradigm, does not use twists. But I think that contradicts the suggestion that (say) Moldvay Basic has an implicit twists rule. I don't think it does. I think the first RPG that I can think of that even puts something like twists on the table is Prince Valiant. And it was still very unusual. Over the Edge would obviously benefit from twists, but in the foreword to the 20th anniversary edition Jonathan Tweet notices that they're missing and observes that if he were rewriting he'd put them in.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I agree that setting => situation play, of which map-and-key is definitely a paradigm, does not use twists.

What? It absolutely does have twists. Sometimes caused by die rolls, sometimes pre-plotted, sometimes player generated. It is a basic aspect of narrative flow. No agreement here, apparently.

Do Messrs. Baker, Olavsrud, or Crane have any kind of acting background?

 

[pemerton]

What? It absolutely does have twists. Sometimes caused by die rolls, sometimes pre-plotted, sometimes player generated. It is a basic aspect of narrative flow. No agreement here, apparently.

I am using Twists in a (semi-)technical sense, to refer to the Torchbearer method, which is a version of the BW, DitV, Prince Valiant, etc method, in which what is narrated as a consequence need not flow, in ingame causal terms, from what the PC attempted. A slightly more generic term is "no whiffing" (Ron Edwards) or "fail forward", but the latter is now more often used not in its original sense but rather to describe a particular technique in railroaded play, so I'm hesitant to use it.

An example of such a Twist, that you brought into the thread, was my decision that a failed attempt at entering Megloss's house would mean that (as a Twist) Megloss turned up.

This is not a thing that is even hinted at in any D&D book I'm aware of other than the 4e Rules Compendium, by any Rolemaster book (which is the system mentioned in the OP), by Hero as best I'm familiar with it, etc.

As I already mentioned, the first time on these boards I suggested, as a possible consequence for failure (ie a Twist) in the context of a Diplomacy check, is that rain starts falling and the crowd disperses rather than listening to the PC, the response I got was "Why would my failed attempt at Diplomacy cause it to start raining?"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What? It absolutely does have twists. Sometimes caused by die rolls, sometimes pre-plotted, sometimes player generated. It is a basic aspect of narrative flow. No agreement here, apparently.

Do Messrs. Baker, Olavsrud, or Crane have any kind of acting background?

Yeah, a GM can introduce a plot twist, so to speak, in any RPG (well, trad ones at least). There are no rules covering the technique of introducing a plot twist as a response to a character failing at some task though, or as a form of currency (this is possible in FitD where a player can ask for a Devil's Bargain, an extra d6 in her pool in return for letting the GM describe some sort of complication which can be unrelated to the current situation). So in the BitD Devil's Bargain case, for instance, once my character was in a fight and really needed another die, and didn't have any resources left to get one, so I got a Devil's Bargain. As I glanced to my right, I saw, in the window of the adjoining abbatoir, the face of a girl from my character's home country, and my demon-sword expressed a terrible thirst for her blood! I got my d6, but now I got new problems...

 

[clearstream]

Yeah, a GM can introduce a plot twist, so to speak, in any RPG (well, trad ones at least). There are no rules covering the technique of introducing a plot twist as a response to a character failing at some task though,

Aside from those in the DMG. There should be consequences and there is a method to produce twists of varying severity. The parts on consequences are fairly well constructed. The parts on nuanced outcomes aren't. I think objectives with twists such as Diplomacy causing rain is that even DM is bound to narrate in a way that the group see as legitimate against their fictional position. And so there needed to be more in place for folk to accept that twist as legit. (Which doesn't mean it wasn't legit... only that folk couldn't see how it was!)

or as a form of currency (this is possible in FitD where a player can ask for a Devil's Bargain, an extra d6 in her pool in return for letting the GM describe some sort of complication which can be unrelated to the current situation). So in the BitD Devil's Bargain case, for instance, once my character was in a fight and really needed another die, and didn't have any resources left to get one, so I got a Devil's Bargain. As I glanced to my right, I saw, in the window of the adjoining abbatoir, the face of a girl from my character's home country, and my demon-sword expressed a terrible thirst for her blood! I got my d6, but now I got new problems...

There's no currency for twists in 5e that I can think of. Devil's Bargain is actually an interesting rule. If you set about designing a system for yielding twists from a fortune mechanic and saying what those twists are, and you want to avoid assumptions about who should say that, then you quickly notice design space for a mechanic that asks players to choose a twist.

Lately, I experimented with that for 5e. It was interesting, because I didn't say - hey, I want to get Devil's Bargain into 5e. I said - hey, I want to have a system that better says what consequences may include. Of course we already have the situation and what the player describes doing, but I wanted to go further than that. I came up with a method where player rolls 2d10 and if they need to use both dice to succeed, then they choose to narrate a twist or deal with failure. I immediately realised I'd recreated a form of Devil's Bargain. My version had some limitations so I went with another approach. It's also interesting to compare Devil's Bargain with some design choices in TB.

The limitation that most concerned me relates to the Czege Principle. With Devil's Bargain, I'm not sure if the bargain will get me what I want. It's just one die and I might still fail. For me that puts the bargain on fair-footing. With my take, the bargain guarantees success. I felt that put it on doubtful-footing. Possible design directions to explore from there are obvious of course.

 

[pemerton]

Aside from those in the DMG. There should be consequences and there is a method to produce twists of varying severity. The parts on consequences are fairly well constructed. The parts on nuanced outcomes aren't. I think objectives with twists such as Diplomacy causing rain is that even DM is bound to narrate in a way that the group see as legitimate against their fictional position. And so there needed to be more in place for folk to accept that twist as legit. (Which doesn't mean it wasn't legit... only that folk couldn't see how it was!)

The reason for objections in the posts is not the one you posit.

It's very straightforward: the objector said (to the effect of) Why would my poor public speaking cause it to rain? That is: the objector wants the consequences that are narrated at the table, which are caused by the failing of the check at the table, to be - in the fiction - things caused by the actions of the character. And the actions of the character, very obviously, don't cause rain to fall.

Another way to put it is this: at the objector's table there is no need for the AW principle, "Make your move, but misdirect." The purpose of that principle, in AW, is to remind the GM that when they say things because of what happens at the table, they need to introduce an appropriate in-fiction cause. There is no need for that principle if every consequence that is narrated at the table is caused by the actions of the character in the fiction, as in this case the in-fiction causation is always obvious without needing to be expressly elucidated.

 

[clearstream]

The reason for objections in the posts is not the one you posit.

It's very straightforward: the objector said (to the effect of) Why would my poor public speaking cause it to rain? That is: the objector wants the consequences that are narrated at the table, which are caused by the failing of the check at the table, to be - in the fiction - things caused by the actions of the character. And the actions of the character, very obviously, don't cause rain to fall.

Another way to put it is this: at the objector's table there is no need for the AW principle, "Make your move, but misdirect." The purpose of that principle, in AW, is to remind the GM that when they say things because of what happens at the table, they need to introduce an appropriate in-fiction cause. There is no need for that principle if every consequence that is narrated at the table is caused by the actions of the character in the fiction, as in this case the in-fiction causation is always obvious without needing to be expressly elucidated.

That reveals a few interesting differences in modes. One motive I have for positing what I do is a conversation I had with another poster (@iserith IIRC) relating to game text they had created outlining possible consequences of D&D ability checks. One example was of aggressive, noisy birds as a consequence for failing a climb check.

How do we know in a principled way what consequences are possible? At the time, my concern was that some of the suggested twists might not be well legitimated against the fiction of situation + what player described. As I understood the climb situation, the stakes in view might well not include birds. The poster's text I subsequently accepted as demonstrating how meaningful consequences could be made broader than failing the actions of the character. Birds could very well be included in a situation and it can then be legitimated as a consequence.

Additionally, In DMG 5e a roll is made only when there are meaningful consequences. As described in the supplemental text, the birds presented a meaningful consequence (noisy and perhaps dangerous.) Raining should be in view and meaningful for it to be legitimated, else it is window-dressing... the meaningful result in your example remains that the attempt to persuade fails. (Although I think there is also a social consequence at the table, of the dwarf not being characterised in a tropey way, which is a strength of the approach you advocated.) Following DMG 5e consequences resolution, performance need not be all that is at stake: failures in performance often only matter in DMG 5e in view of other consequences.

Another difference is that D&D traditionally drives a forwards-going narrative. In D&D, it's normally less acceptable to retroactively add birds to a cliff just because a character fails their climb check. Those consequences need to be in view up front. That's not true of game modes that take a result and can apply it retroactively. These differences are about principles of legitimation.

 

[pemerton]

@clearstream

I'm not a party to your discussion with iserith and others. But I was a party to the discussion about the Diplomacy example. Here is the reply in question (and here's a hyperlink - I'm not using the quote function as a poster from a 10 year old discussion doesn't need to be notified of this particular conversation):

I would be pretty pissed off if my dwarf's low diplomacy roll made it rain. I'm playing D&D, not Toon. I don't think the consequences should be unrelated to the cause.

That's not ambiguous. It is exactly as I posted above. It has nothing to do with "legitimacy" given the fiction, and everything to do with a principle about how in fiction causation and fiction introduced as part of consequence narration should be correlated.

How do we know in a principled way what consequences are possible? At the time, my concern was that some of the suggested twists might not be well legitimated against the fiction of situation + what player described.

<snip>

Raining should be in view and meaningful for it to be legitimated, else it is window-dressing... the meaningful result in your example remains that the attempt to persuade fails.

<snip>

Another difference is that D&D traditionally drives a forwards-going narrative. In D&D, it's normally less acceptable to retroactively add birds to a cliff just because a character fails their climb check. Those consequences need to be in view up front.

Three things:

* It is not retroactive to introduce it starts to rain - that is purely forward looking. It's just that instead of a random weather check, the GM has responded to the failed Diplomacy check.

* If you read the post I quoted, you will see that there is no complaint that (eg) the GM didn't telegraph with cloudy skies.

* Not every RPG follows the AW principle of hard moves follow on soft moves. In AW, narrating the birds in the tree, or the clouds in the sky, creates particular opportunities for subsequent hard moves, including if the player hands an opportunity on a silver platter. No such rule applies in 4e D&D, in part because there are no "silver platters" in 4e D&D: the GM does not get the opportunity to "follow through" in the AW fashion if a soft move is made and then ignored. What 4e D&D has instead is scene-based resolution in the form of a skill challenge, and narrating that it starts to rain is permissible.

Whether it's well-judged is a further question, but relevant considerations there would include broader questions of them, is the speaker a cleric of Melora (probably doesn't get arbitrarily rained on), etc. Not whether or not the GM had narrated some clouds.

EDIT: A further set of considerations:

* In AD&D, and I suspect in 5e D&D, narrating birds on the cliff at the opening of the climb check is an invitation to the players to describe how their PCs chase away the birds or put on bird-proof gear or something similar that engages with the granularity of the situation - and all that stuff is low- or no-stakes. So in effect, every time a possible consequence is flagged it invites the players to deal with it. Narrate clouds and they bring their umbrellas. As a result the space for failure narration is winnowed down more and more. In another recent thread @Manbearcat called this sort of thing, when initiated by the players ("Are there birds?" "Are there clouds?" etc) a "conversation trap" used by players to manipulate obstacle ratings.

* In AW, on the other hand, chasing away the birds is just another action, and either triggers a GM soft move or - if the circumstances are right - is Acting Under Fire and hence triggers a player side move. So it's not a way of "bypassing" challenge by hedging the GM in with more and more low-stakes fiction.

* 4e D&D would permit a "weather watching" attempt as part of a skill challenge to give a successful oration outdoors - a check on Nature, say, to affirm that no rain is expected - and depending on framing it might be a primary or a secondary check. This is different from both the above as a technique, but it locates the attempt within the resolution process, so it just feeds through to the outcome without any disruption or bogging down or "conversation traps".