D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[GreyICE]

That's fine - I can up the fictional stakes while holding action resolution constant.

But I got pretty much the opposite impression from [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION], namely, that I will have to rethink how D&D works. Maybe I misinterpreted?

Well there's several issues on epic gaming that happen. First, is the roleplaying aspect. Death has become a joke, and minor problems have become downright trivial. I'm just going to use articles here, because people other than me have explored this nicely:
Article: The Ten Commandments of Epic Eternity Publishing

The second problem is the scaling math. Basically, by epic tier, most things you know about EL encounters have to be thrown out. Take an EL+4 solo and chuck it at your level 21 characters. Chances are even if it's MM3/MV solo, it's getting locked down and shredded in short order. There's just too much epic tier characters can do to a single monster that unless you just tweak the math to make it virtually impossible to hit, it's going down. As a small example, an Epic Psion can:

- Inflict -9 to defenses, every round
- Inflict -11 to hit, every round

They can also exploit paragon level tricks to send things 30-40 feet into the air, trivially.

That not worrying you?

Fighters can daze a target using at-will attacks.

That's the level of action denial that simply cannot be matched at lower tiers. And you can't handle it with any amount of "+5 to saving throws" "Saving throws at the start of the turn" or "la de da 2 turns of actions." Two turns of actions doesn't MATTER if those actions are taken at a -11 penalty to hit.

Solos take a short hop out the window. They're useless. Maybe if you throw 2-3 Solos at them you have a shot of an interesting encounter.

And that turns grindy. In short, at epic tier, the level of action denial and raw damage is such that encounter design doesn't work like it used to. Have three brutes in front of the squishy stuff? Cool, that's tough in Heroic. Not terrible in paragon. In Epic? Expect a striker to nova one for 300+ damage, the leader to allow him to add another 50-100 onto that or more (check out the char-op boards for some truly sick things leaders can do in Epic, including allow their entire party to move 8 squares and attack before the first round of combat begins). Expect the controller to simply lock one down forever. Watch the third one try and hit something and get teleported 10 squares away, knocked prone, and generally kicked out of combat.


This is partially a planning issue. WotC intended epic-tier combat to last 8-10 rounds. When they discovered no one LIKED 8-10 round combats when each round had multiple standard, move, and minor actions (hello 2 hour combats) they introduced a bunch of math fixes and other things to bump up characters chance to hit in Epic. This resulted in epic level characters that actually felt EPIC (not country bumpkins who couldn't hit a damn thing). It also resulted in conditionals and penalties that just went godtier. Damage also went god tier. In general, the following is true:

- Solos are not actually a threat. The eternity publishing site has rules for supersolos (which are basically phased fights, where each fight is a difficult solo encounter in its own right). These aren't necessarily sufficient. More tricks, such as limited invulnerability the PCs have to shut down mid fight, minion spawners, free healing, and more are necessary.

- Large packs of mobs are not actually a threat unless they have plentiful tricks. In general, tricks are more necessary at epic level. Nothing is going to get there by just doing damage and having defenses unless those defenses are so good that attacking them is pointless and the damage is so high that it's one-shotting people.

I don't have much experience, beyond one campaign that fell apart (don't use prepublished adventures, kids), but there's been a lot I've read on it, mostly because of how bad that was:

Eternity Publishing
Why I’m Starting to Love Epic 4e D&D : Critical Hits


Baaasically you have to become a part time designer because none of WotC's epic level stuff actually works as they think it was supposed to work.

 

[Emerikol]

But yes, I do agree its about compromise. Pretty much the entire endeavor is about compromise to one degree or another.

Well some things are but others are not. I do think the number of pages devoted to this subject or that can be a compromise. I think my suggestion to have a terse very clear stat block and a flavorful description is not so much a compromise as it is pleasing both sides. I think they need in some cases to please both sides and not settle for a lukewarm middle of the road approach.

There are some things which if widespread in the rules I'll probably just pass on the game. If they are rare then I'll houserule them worse case assuming no modular option is offered. Others though who are a bit averse to houseruling might actually abandon the game even in those situations. The designers I think need to realize which approach is best, compromise vs modularity.

They also need to strongly emphasize that rules are not set in stone. That DMs and their groups are very free to change anything. They need to give lots of examples of doing this in the DMG. They need to have enough modules to make the whole concept seem standard. This really was the beauty of the earlier editions. But I think 5e needs to do it even better.

 

[Remathilis]

Something to that. I don't know that I'd go so far as to call 4e itself 'offensive', but the promotion of it was certainly off-putting.

At times, it almost came across as, "The game you've been playing all this time - and which we've been selling to you - is now suddenly bad! How can you possibly go on with it, when we now have something so superior to sell you?"

They have changed their tone immensely for 5e, and the change is welcome. But I think they themselves helped stoke the fires of the edition wars, and those fires are still blazing.

I was there at the same time, and I still don't recall the tone being as confrontational as other people do.

Maybe because I recall the debates on the boards during those days, and there was a lot of complaints that seemed pretty common:

• Paladins and other classes are unnecessarily restricted by alignment (fixed: Paladins can be any alignment),
• wizards/clerics are too powerful (fixed: limited options, more bound due to roles),
• fighters too boring weak (fixed: fighter get powers like wizards/clerics do),
• saves/attacks/skill bonuses all raise too wildly different (fixed: everyone uses the exact same progression),
• Prestige classes and multi-classing abuse (fixed: original MC was feat-driven, prestige classes built in automatically as paragon paths).
• magic item Christmas trees (partial fix: the six items reduced to three, the rest limited use),
• linear fighters/quadratic wizards (fixed: everyone uses the same power advancement),
• Buff suites/tracking bonuses (fixed: everything either permanent of lasts a round),
• monsters too hard to create/modify (fixed: monster math simpler),
• ability damage (fixed: as was level drain),
• shut-down monsters with DR/SR or crit/SA immunity (fixed: every monster is attackable by most classes),
• combats too quick/one sided and hard to run with multiple foes (fixed: combat a LOT slower, more tactical, and lasts longer even with five on five combats)
• alignment too mechanically tied and confusing (fixed: alignment collapsed into five, no mechanical influence).

They didn't tell us these problems existed, WE TOLD THEM. We can be right to say their answers weren't good or what we wanted, but we have no right to complain about WotC telling us 3e was broken when we spent hours talking about how broken it was.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Glad you liked the articles [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION].

I have already solved all these 4E Epic Problems (with very simple solutions).

Problem #1 : These Epic PCs are too powerful for same level monsters...

There is a mathematical imbalance in 4E that gives players approx. 18.3% of a level more power per level than same level monsters.

Therefore every 6 levels a PC has, they are effectively 1 level higher than you think.

Level 6 PC is balanced for Level 7 standard monster
Level 12 PC ~ Level 14
Level 18 PC ~ Level 21
Level 24 PC ~ Level 28 standard monster or Level 24 Elite monster
Level 30 PC ~ Level 35

Therefore at the epic tier, PCs are between 3-5 levels more powerful than you think they are.

However, you cannot just use vastly higher level monsters to compensate for this because the math will get a bit annoying on to attack rolls (especially versus soldiers).

So you want higher level encounters BUT don't use monsters more than about 3 levels higher unless you can avoid it.

One elegant way of doing this is to slide ranks up one:

Use standard Monsters instead of Minions
Use Elites instead of standard monsters
Use Solo's instead of Elites
Use Super-solo's instead of Solo's.

Problem #2 : What are Super-Solo Monsters?

KRONOS Level 30 Super-Solo Brute


Problem #3 : Action Denial

It took me a few tries to solve this (and I may not have fixed the above Kronos stat-block with my latest solution), but I think I have cracked it:

Elite Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Elite Monster] can spend a Standard Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save).

Solo Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Solo Monster] can spend a Minor Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save). Or it can spend a Standard Action to remove ALL negative conditions and effects.

Super-Solo Resilience: At the start of its turn. the [Solo Monster] can spend a Free Action to remove a single negative condition or ongoing effect (even if it doesn't allow a save). Or it can spend a Minor Action to remove ALL negative conditions and effects.

 

[JamesonCourage]

They didn't tell us these problems existed, WE TOLD THEM. We can be right to say their answers weren't good or what we wanted, but we have no right to complain about WotC telling us 3e was broken when we spent hours talking about how broken it was.

If I say "my hand hurts" and then the doctor cuts it off, I'm going to be mad that not only did he make my problem worse, he's telling me "but now your hand doesn't hurt."

People have every right to complain about WotC telling them their game was broken when they complained about mild aches and lost a limb for it. To some people, the game was "broken" to the point that it was unplayable. I didn't have that experience, but I can see where they're coming from. To others, though, the game had problems, but was very playable.

It's like what's going on now with 5e. A lot of people who love 4e understandably initially hoped 5e would be a cleaned up 4e that fixed the problems they had. They had a few aches. Now, they're afraid to they're going to lose a limb. And I understand why they feel that way, even if I don't share the same sentiment myself.

Again, though, WotC "fixed" problems that either helped groups (many people love 4e, and I get why they do), or it hurt them (many people reject 4e, and I understand why they do). I'd agree with you if everyone complained that "3e is broken and nobody can play it." But, that wasn't the case. To one group, you cut their arm off to stop the ache in their hand; to another, you gave them a kickass cybernetic arm that can beat up robots.

For that first group, though, I think they have the right to complain, especially during feedback on 5e, where people are bringing up past edition "mistakes" and "fixes". I think they certainly do have that right. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

The problem is JC, even today, we're still seeing lots of people who deny these problems exist at all. There are people who swear up and down that there are no balance issues in 3e or that 15 MAD is a figment of people's imagination. And, these same people are the ones who are generally the ones who are up in arms the most about WOTC's marketing.

 

[timASW]

IMO, 4e simply gave me more appropriate mechanics (more tools) to both "punish" (tax the PCs) and "reward" (appropriate XP) exploratory play. This is in addition to the mechanics that I already had in previous editions.
-

Here's the disconnect you guys dont seem to get.

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Heres an example of how I do exploration and how I feel it should be done in a system ( of course right? Otherwise i would do it a different way)


The characters are attempting to find their way down off the top of an active, but not erupting volcano.....


"Okay guys you can go back down the way you came up and go around the mountain at its base. You wont get lost and it wasnt a hard climb but it will take a lot longer.

Or you can head down the other side of the mountain. Your not sure what you'll find but its probably going to be a lot faster. "

(some back and forth among the players ending with them deciding the party ranger should lead them the shorter way)


Okay ranger you lead the way, whats your survival skill ? ( 12 with mods ).

"Okay you lead them around some snow banks and cravasses, lesser guides might have had a problem but you've got everything handled".

2nd day of travel...

Me "you see some fresh tracks of other travelers on the foot path. Make a survival check.... Okay they're such and such. "

The cleric steps forward:
"I'll go talk to them, my diplomacy is high". ( i check how high, not bad for his level)

brief RP encounter. One roll, stories (foreshadowing) and some goods traded everyone goes on their way.

"okay ranger you get everyone down the mountain and back on the road. You cut a few days easily off of the trip"

Calculate XP for RANGER ONLY for CR 1 skill encounter (some danger, no real risk).

Calculate XP for CLERIC ONLY. CR 2 skill encounter (no real danger, fair chance of failure)

DONE. No one else did anything. The rest of the party should not earn XP for following a guide through the mountains.


Wilderness exploration over, some wild-y things done, some RP in, some skills used. Extended skill challenge? Hell no.

Do i need a bunch of tools? No i dont.

No punishment, no need to track resources or surges or anything of the sort, because theres no good reason to clutter up the game that way anymore then theres a good reason to make the characters count out how many calories worth of rations they eat each day and carry.

Rewards? A few skill based XP but nothing major. The reward was speeding the story along and getting a little foreshadow of dangers to come because of the RP encounter.

 

[Remathilis]

If I say "my hand hurts" and then the doctor cuts it off, I'm going to be mad that not only did he make my problem worse, he's telling me "but now your hand doesn't hurt."

People have every right to complain about WotC telling them their game was broken when they complained about mild aches and lost a limb for it. To some people, the game was "broken" to the point that it was unplayable. I didn't have that experience, but I can see where they're coming from. To others, though, the game had problems, but was very playable.

It's like what's going on now with 5e. A lot of people who love 4e understandably initially hoped 5e would be a cleaned up 4e that fixed the problems they had. They had a few aches. Now, they're afraid to they're going to lose a limb. And I understand why they feel that way, even if I don't share the same sentiment myself.

Again, though, WotC "fixed" problems that either helped groups (many people love 4e, and I get why they do), or it hurt them (many people reject 4e, and I understand why they do). I'd agree with you if everyone complained that "3e is broken and nobody can play it." But, that wasn't the case. To one group, you cut their arm off to stop the ache in their hand; to another, you gave them a kickass cybernetic arm that can beat up robots.

For that first group, though, I think they have the right to complain, especially during feedback on 5e, where people are bringing up past edition "mistakes" and "fixes". I think they certainly do have that right. As always, play what you like

Again, I think its completely reasonable to discuss (and disect) WotC's "fixes" but to say they "fixed what ain't broke" is slightly disingenuous. They took the feedback and tried to address it. Its why I worry about things like the generic classes debate; I fear WotC might be listening.

 

[Manbearcat]

Here's the disconnect you guys dont seem to get.

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Its pretty bold of you to assume that there is a disconnect. Its further bold for you to assume that we don't get it. Its further bold still to tell us that we don't need "tools" to capture the emergent exploration fiction/scenes that we, and our tables, are looking to capture. Its bold yet again to tell us that we don't need punitive measures or incentives/stakes in order to capture the mood and scenes that we're looking for. Bolder still to tell us you "feel" that our table dynamics and fictional renderings (by way of mechanical resolution and creativity) yield a bunch of unnecessary gunk. It sounds like you're just looking to pick a fight.

But against my better judgement I'll indulge you anyway as politely as I can.

If you look upthread what you are depicting is very much akin to S'mon's "you are here...what do you do" exploratory play. That is the standard benchmark for typical sandbox, simulatory, task resolution of locale exploration. Its loose, its fast, and its mostly mechanic-neutral roleplaying and a few task resolution skill rolls. This is the predominant mode of operation for non-scene framed exploratory play. Free-form, "getting to know you...getting to know all...about you" exploration of the immediate surroundings (and perhaps bringing to bear some background or a deployable resource or two). For anyone who has played role-playing games, this is not avant garde or breaking news. It is probably the baby steps that all DMs/gaming tables take in the genesis sessions of their gaming experience.

It is all but mandatory to one degree or another. However, what it doesn't do is capture a specific genre relevant trope through a mechanical resolution ruleset that is contingent upon the co-authorship of the scene (DMs and PCs) by way of genre logic and fiction-first intent. A well-rendered Skill Challenge should feel like a closed scene of a play or a movie married to a "Choose Your Own Adventure" book. There must be something at risk; stakes (pass or fail). The DM must set the scene appropriately and the fiction must move forward from that initial starting point (where stakes are clearly laid out and the genre-inspiration clearly conveyed through implication) by way of the PCs initial reactive or proactive response (contingent upon the fiction) to the "set scene." The fiction then emerges by way of the resolution rules and the "fiction-first", "genre-relevant" interpretation of the result of each roll. Linear process-simulation of one task resolution (after another) has neither a "fiction-first" motive nor a "genre-relevant" motive...so it will ultimately fail in attempting to capture whatever it is that you're attempting to capture (and will then render its pointless).

Further, specifically in this scenario, what you would be trying to capture is whatever exploratory genre-convention you are aiming at (I title it Appalachian Trail Attrition play as its my own and my players most broad understanding of the genre). It could be something like the climbing of Mount Everest, being lost in the frozen tundra like the first Arctic Explorers, the jungle scenarios from "The Heart of Darkness", being lost off the beaten path of the Appalachian Trial a la "The Girl Who Loved Tom Gordon" or "A Walk in the Woods"...etc, etc. There are tons of movies and real life stories for inspiration of this theme/genre. There are very specific things that you need to induce within your players (an ominous dread...the eerie threat of a passive-aggressive, callous, ruthless, indifferent, non-sentient wilderness...that will just as soon eat you as feed you)...and you must do this through some tangible form of attrition.

In 3.5 years of gaming with the 4e ruleset, I have used this convention twice:

1) An Artic Explorer Skill Challenge to start off the game in Heroic Tier. The PCs were captured by a tribe of nomadic orcs, starved, forced into indentured servitude in the great white north for a full season. The PCs were chained together in a hovel every morning...barely enough to keep the cold and the chill wind at bay. They were fed just enough to keep them alive. Two of their numbers had died and they were forced by the orcs to consume their remains as food was scarce. After one stormy evening, their orc handlers did not stir them. That evening turned into three. On the third day the game formally began by the PCs working their way out of their bondage and investigating the scene outside of their hovel. The orcs were gone, possessions still in hovels, stewpot creaking in the wind as it hangs over the spit, now frozen over. In the great white north, a few hours of winds and the constant snow will undermine all track investigations. They were half-starved, struggling to hold onto their senses with nothing but the blinding white of a howling wintry tundra staring back at them. However, they were able to scavenge scraps of food and crude weapons...and off they went attempting to find civilization...but first they must find suitable shelter and replenishing food while evading all of the non-sentient and sentient threats around them. I used the story of the Elisha Kent Kane and Isaac Israel Hayes' Arctic Expedition as inspiration and genre-logic. The Skill Challenge and Disease/Condition Track system captured it perfectly and we were all terrifically pleased at the table. The Extended Skill Challenge went on for 4 sessions with 3 failures before the PCs (barely) made it to civilization alive (one PC was literally dragged in on a makeshift sled/gurney). They were intensely connected with their PCs for the rest of the campaign (which was high fantasy regardless of its mundane beginnings) which ran through late Paragon tier.

2) A Paragon Tier "A Heart of Darkness" jungle excursion to find a remote Shaman that could perform a ritual to restore the PCs (two of which were suffering from an incurable Abyssal Plague while one other was in its final stages). Not only were they suffering the attrition of the Condition Track that I rendered for the jungle but two of the PCs were suffering concurrent Disease Track implications from the Abyssal Plague. This Skill Challenge was resolved with only one failure but again, a stunning success.

Neither of those two situations (not the focused, co-authored, genre-relevant fiction nor the induced tension and sense of dread) came off as well in efforts in editions past as they did in 4e.

Now you may not enjoy "Choose Your Own Adventure" books. You may not enjoy fiction-first, outcome-based simulation, genre relevant co-authorship of closed scenes at your gaming table. You may not enjoy the convention of attrition-gaming (nor the 2 scenes that I outlined above). That is perfectly fine. But maybe you could rein it in a little and try not to tell me that I don't know my own tastes (or that of my players) and I don't know how best to run my own games, or that I cannot analyze the implication of mechanical resolution sets on our shared fiction, or that my games and resolution techniques yield "a hunk of unnecessary junk".

That would be great.

 

[pemerton]

You dont need "tools" to do exploration. you shouldnt be "punishing" or "rewarding" it. Everything you described feels like a bunch of unnecessary gunk.

Heres an example of how I do exploration and how I feel it should be done in a system

<snip example>

Wilderness exploration over, some wild-y things done, some RP in, some skills used. Extended skill challenge? Hell no.

Do i need a bunch of tools? No i dont.

<snip>

Rewards? A few skill based XP but nothing major. The reward was speeding the story along and getting a little foreshadow of dangers to come because of the RP encounter.

There's two reasons I prefer an approach more like the one [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] describes.

First, by giving XP based on (at least roughly) the amount of time and effort the scene soaked up at the table, rather than on which PC did the guiding and which the talking, I get a better pacing and progression of PC advancement in my game. The story moves on (in orthodox D&D, I should add, the story is heavily level dependent, because you can't move on from kobolds to their dragon overlords, let alone Tiamat, without a few levels under your belt).

Second, Manbearcat's sounds more interesting. Whereas yours sounds kind of dull, at least to me. Nothing really seems to have turned on the choice of which path to take. Nothing really seems to have been at stake in the cleric's conversation. We could do it all by email, or via GM fiat ("You make it down the mountainside, and on the way you talk to some people who tell you XYZ") and the outcome for the game would seem to be hardly any different.

Maybe the GM's description of the mountainside, and RPing of the travellers spoken to, was more evocative than your example seemed to suggest. But what's with the bit about saving a few days on the trip. I mean, why did that even matter? And if it was predetermined by the ranger's Survival skill with no need to roll, what is the point of making the players choose which way to go? I mean, if the players choose to go the slower way they take longer (and maybe that costs them something?) and they don't get to meet the travellers (and so miss out on some info) and they get no benefit in return, because both the navigation down the short path and the talking to the travellers were auto-successes. It's just that the GM set up a "gotcha" for the players because s/he hasn't told the players that they're auto-successes.

I don't see the point of that sort of play. It seems to me that it's the GM playing with him-/herself, using the players' choices as a sort of die-roll ("Haha, they chose to go the long way! So now I better work out what happens when they're running late and haven't caught up on the latests gossip!").

 

[pemerton]

Well there's several issues on epic gaming that happen. First, is the roleplaying aspect. Death has become a joke, and minor problems have become downright trivial.

That bit I'm expecting. It's what I have in mind when I talk about amping up the fictional stakes. I'm quite looking forward to it!

That's the level of action denial that simply cannot be matched at lower tiers.

The action denial stuff is more of a worry, because I see plenty of that at paragon.

The PCs in my game aren't char-op level in their optimisation, I think, so your particular examples might be exaggerated for my table, but I can certainly see the basic issue.

I've read some of [MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION]'s stuff, and am thinking about various ways to handle action recovery for elites and solos (including some of the ideas he's posted in this and earlier threads).

Although I haven't self-consciously adopted the "up every creature one degree" approach, I do use, as my default, above level encounters where that is made up more by enemy numbers than enemy levels. It sounds like I'm not going to be doing any less of that at Epic!

Anyway, thanks both for the replies.

 

[Manbearcat]

@pemerton

I often forget to include the fundamentals of the framework of Skill Challenges, as I find them implicit, but I should include them on every post as it appears that there is a large contingency of people who do not understand the fundamentals. You seem to always do so and it appears helpful to dialogue so it may be a good idea to hammer home the following routinely.

If I want to resolve a conflict of any variety (in this case an exploratory conflict) where stakes are involved, there are three dynamics that will be at work at the table:

- WHEN is the conflict formally resolved? When the PCs reach their x number of success or their y number of failures.

- By WHAT vessel does the fiction emerge and how empowering is that vessel? By the use of genre-logic and fiction-first interpretation of each succuess/failure (not linear process-simulation) that leads to genre-relevant, dynamic interchange between PCs and DMs. I (and I know this is not the standard, but it is not strictly forbidden) allow, and sometimes demand, that my PCs narrate the results of a specific roll. I pro-actively take the reins of the fictional culmination of their words (derived by the amalgamation of the fictional content preceeding the skill roll, the skill roll brought to bear to interact with that fictional content, and the pass/fail of that skill roll), create a new micro-conflict to resolve (again using fiction-first, genre-logic within the greater framework) and they react. This interchange continues until the conflict is resolved and the narrative is formally sculpted.

- HOW well does that conflict resolution vessel capture the feel, spirit and conventions of the genre trope you're attempting to emulate/reproduce? The structure and the use of dynamic interpretation of results and subsequent narrative sculpting through fiction-first, genre-logic works as well as I could hope for in capturing the genre trope that is aimed at when the challenge is contrived.

The Skill Challenge framework, as a narrative-sculpting pacing mechanism, answers each of those questions tangibly. It doesn't just hint at a framework that vaguely alludes to a formula. It is a formula.

 

[Emerikol]

One of the fundamental problems when listening to complaints is that it is very easy for a vocal minority to drive an issue. It is also very easy to produce a knee jerk solution that enrages everyone else. It is important if 10% of your players really hate something. Enough 10%'s add up. But it is also important to keep the 90% in mind too when coming up with a solution. And sometimes, the solution is perhaps optional rules and not a change.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Process simulation:

WHEN is the conflict formally resolved? If we roll a dice, when we know if it rolled high enough.

- By WHAT vessel does the fiction emerge and how empowering is that vessel? Just like in reality, you are faced with a challenge, you attempt to overcome it, and your efforts are influenced by chance. Upon a failure, you might not defeat the challenge, or it might take you a long time, or it might provoke another challenge or put you in danger. Upon success, you overcome the challenge, perhaps quicker than expected, perhaps in a way that helps you overcome an upcoming challenge.

- HOW well does that conflict resolution vessel capture the feel, spirit and conventions of the genre trope you're attempting to emulate/reproduce?

I'm not usually trying to reproduce a genre/trope per se, as there is a bias in works of fiction towards success. My simple conflict resolution obviously lends itself to simulation play. The players may not succeed, they may suffer extraordinary setbacks, there is no need for them to follow the story I have in mind, but it's there if they want it. Co-authorship comes from their decisions to pursue things beyond what I present, and I am fairly ad-lib in this sense.

You proudly speak about fiction-first interpretation, but I don't know what that means. Am I playing non-fiction-first?

 

[D'karr]

The Skill Challenge framework, as a narrative-sculpting pacing mechanism, answers each of those questions tangibly. It doesn't just hint at a framework that vaguely alludes to a formula. It is a formula.

This is the beauty of the Skill Challenge framework. It is also the tragedy of the examples in the DMG.

The examples in the DMG are just that examples. However, some people took them to be literal examples. For those people those examples became the "only" way to use the framework. The "arguments" about the "intimidate" check on the duke challenge were notoriously "literal".

It was very disappointing. The use of the framework, in published form, became incredibly mechanical. Each subsequent "publication", by its mechanical display, reinforced the erroneous view that it was all about the mechanics. When in reality what should have been pushed forward was the use of the skill challenge to do scene framing.

If the section on the book had used "narration" at the game table to show how a skill challenge was meant to be run, it's possible that all the "confusion" might have been reduced.

When I design skill challenges the entirety of it is much more organic. I also don't have to write down mechanically what happens. Very simple notes work fine for me.

When reading a published skill challenge what I do is reverse the skill/outcome sections and add complications. IMO, what is really missing from the framework is a "failure escalation/complications" section. I also prefer the variable failure method rather than the static 3 failure method.

If I was to write a template for the skill challenge framework I would change it to something like this:

Skill Challenge
Complexity: X (Y successes before Z failures)
Description / Goal:

Method
Action description / relevant skill / complication / difficulty variation​

Success beyond expectation: Goal accomplished + bonus
Success: Goal accomplished
Partial Success: Goal partially accomplished + penalty
Failure: Failed goal
Catastrophic Failure: Failed condition + added penalty
​

I would also have taken more time in explaining how to design an exciting skill challenge. A skill challenge is not the same as a skill check, and that needs to be greatly emphasized. If a simple skill check is all that is needed then don't design a skill challenge around it. If a scene is what is needed then a skill challenge might be an appropriate tool to use.

I find that the framework works much better when it's used to make "freeform" cyclical OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) decisions. The DM frames the situation (GOAL), the players observe and act (action description), the DM determines the appropriate skill to use (relevant skill & difficulty), the result of the action either advances their goal, or adds a complication (complication description). In my games this is all descriptive, even though skill checks are used.

It's also tragic that some decided that this was simply an exercise in dice rolling, instead of what is actually explained in the book, a descriptive form of extended task resolution with relevant consequences.

When used in the appropriate manner I can pretty much turn any exciting scene into an appropriately framed skill challenge:
Searching for a bandit in a city.
Helping a family/town save a burning farmhouse/building.
Traversing a mountain range/tundra/jungle/etc.
The Indiana Jones mine cart chase.
Getting to Theoden, through his "guards", and freeing his mind from Saruman's influence.
Rallying the demoralized Theoden to go out and face the orc's at Helm's Deep.
Convincing Theoden to send troops to help Gondor.
Disarming the doomsday device beneath parliament while goons are protecting it.
Crafting of an artifact.
Infiltration into a "masqued" ball.
Many more.




[Edit]
Forgot to add Partial Success





-

 

[Manbearcat]

Good afternoon Chris,

pemerton's thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...challenges-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.html

is a very good emporium of information on this subject. I have multiple posts (I think somewhere around page 10) on this exact subject. I'll try to briefly convey the issues at present here (which manifested in that thread and has manfiested in others).

Your modus operandi appears to be classic process-simulation. I have been there. I know it well. I play it now and again with other systems. By its nature it is "process-first". Fiction interests are a second-order fuction of this process simulation. Therefore they are subordinate to this process. Therefore, it is not "fiction-first."

A check is rolled. The scope of resultant fiction is narrowly mapped to a linear coupling of cause and effect by way of the PC's internal locus of control mechanics related to their skill that they bring to bear on the environment, in this moment, as a result of this singular check - eg; You are on a horse. You roll Ride. You pass: You ride faster or proficently. You fail: You ride slower or without proficiency. Perhaps you fall off the horse. An aggregation of these same checks within a series are narrowly interpreted by way of linear coupling of this same process simulation of cause and effect.

"Fiction-first" is just that. Process-simulation is subordinate to that interest. Due to this, process-simulation, much of the time, turns into "outcome-based simulation." The goal is to capture a specific, genre-inspired trope (an Indiana Jones chase scene or an exploration group lost in the frozen arctic wilderness, etc). Your interpretation of checks are guided by the "genre-logic" and expectations embedded in these tropes. Your interpretation of skill checks is meant to broaden the scope of possible resultant fiction such that a diverse, dynamic fictional rendering of the aggregation of checks is possible. A failed Ride check may be that your horse slows down due to poor horsemanship or you fall off the saddle. However, it may also be somethiing external to your Ride locus of control that complicates matters. It is the heart of the conflict that you are attempting to overcome (the stakes) and the check's relation to that (not the exact mapping of process) that is relevant. Are you attempting to evade pursuit? If so, perhaps a failed check means the ground opens up in a great sinkhole before you. Perhaps over the next ridge there is a nigh-impassable gorge is revealed. Perhaps an unforseen weather event complicates things (a dust-storm, a flash-flood, a downpour, etc). Perhaps a stray arrow aimed at your back strikes a saddle-strap causing it to unbuckle and now you are faced with trying to jury-rig your saddle in the middle of treacherous pursuit at top speed...or ditch your horse...or try to dismantle the saddle and stay on your horse, etc.

If you remove the strictures of linear mapping of process-simulation, your fictional possibilities (from check to check and overall in the entirety of the conflict resolution) broaden dramatically and become much more diverse and dynamic as a result...and thus you are able to use genre-logic to stay the course within whatever trope you are attempting to capture...rather than circumventing the process due to strident, narrow, cause and effect mapping.

I hope that makes sense. I understand that outcome-based simulation is quite controversial to process-simulation interests. It seems to often exhibit an allergic reaction. That may be your reaction here.

 

[Manbearcat]

@D'karr

I agree with everything you've written but I cannot xp. Great post.

Your process sounds to be almost exactly the same as my own. Diverse Failure/Complication results are just about the most important component of a compelling Skill Challenge.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Good afternoon Chris,

pemerton's thread:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...challenges-noncombat-resolution-mechanic.html

is a very good emporium of information on this subject. I have multiple posts (I think somewhere around page 10) on this exact subject. I'll try to briefly convey the issues at present here (which manifested in that thread and has manfiested in others).

I've read it, and I've disagreed with it there.

Your modus operandi appears to be classic process-simulation. I have been there. I know it well. I play it now and again with other systems. By its nature it is "process-first". Fiction interests are a second-order fuction of this process simulation. Therefore they are subordinate to this process. Therefore, it is not "fiction-first."

Don't patronise me; I've run both varieties of game too. As far as I can tell, 'fiction-first' in your mind means throwing in events based on some internal Bayesian analysis of events seen in the genre. You like drama. You like that a failed horse-riding check might result in something unrelated to your horse-riding skill occuring. In fact, your horse-riding skill is 'drama avoidance (horse-riding)'. This is fine, for games in which drama will be inherent to the genre, to the players' actions and to the narrative.

But most of the time, if one of my players is horse-riding, and fails a check, then something horse-riding related will happen. This might include the horse stumbling on bad ground (part of the skill is navigating the terrain), this might include the saddle loosening (again, part of the skill is setting up your equipment properly), but it will not include a sudden change in the weather, or someone's arrow hitting your horse, these are both outside of your control and unrelated to your horse-riding skill (debatably for the latter).

If you remove the strictures of linear mapping of process-simulation, your fictional possibilities (from check to check and overall in the entirety of the conflict resolution) broaden dramatically and become much more diverse and dynamic as a result...and thus you are able to use genre-logic to stay the course within whatever trope you are attempting to capture...rather than circumventing the process due to strident, narrow, cause and effect mapping.

I hope that makes sense. I understand that outcome-based simulation is quite controversial to process-simulation interests. It seems to often exhibit an allergic reaction. That may be your reaction here.

If you remove the strictures of any mapping then your fictional possibilities become endless! Why, an extraordinary success on a diplomacy check might reveal that you are, in fact, the king's son! An amazing arcana roll might accidentally cast the perfect spell and destroy the universe! Obviously I am being facetious, but without some monotone connection between cause and effect, the game becomes like a soap opera to me, rather than a well-plotted serial. In fact, I might go so far as to say that if you need to remove formulaic progression between events and substitute disconnected, but well sampled events, then you lack the creativity to work within tighter bounds. I typically use the non-simulation style when playing one-offs, or when ad-libbing in games with light rules, but I cannot understand using it in a game like D&D, with its tight mathematical rules.

As ever, your mileage may vary.

 

[Manbearcat]

I've read it, and I've disagreed with it there.

Don't patronise me;

<snip>

I wasn't patronising. I was just trying to be thorough as you posed the question. I didn't know that you were aware because you asked for clarification. You are clearly aware. I now don't know why you asked for clarification.

Even though your interpretation is as facetious and in as negative a light as possible, it is clear from your post that you are thougtful, have considered this and understand the dynamics that you you wanted clarification on. Good enough. By the tone of your post, it seems that I've antagonized you in some way. I'll leave you be.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Firstly, thanks for the kind words GreyICE. I wish I just had some epic pdfs available by now...too many ideas and not enough time to get it all sorted.

Hey there pemerton!

That bit I'm expecting. It's what I have in mind when I talk about amping up the fictional stakes. I'm quite looking forward to it!

I think one of the problems is general epic monster design (being too lightweight) and epic encounter design (where not enough thought is put into how groups of different monsters work together).

As regards the first point, the epic monsters in the published material rarely bring any new conditions or energy types to the game. I had a few of each in the pipeline such as for Void (permanent) damage I was going to be lenient and say it could only be healed by out of combat rituals or Warp (corrupted) damage that, when healed, drops off the hosts body to become a pseudonatural creature (determined by the amount of warp damage dealt).

The action denial stuff is more of a worry, because I see plenty of that at paragon.

The PCs in my game aren't char-op level in their optimisation, I think, so your particular examples might be exaggerated for my table, but I can certainly see the basic issue.

I've read some of [MENTION=326]Upper_Krust[/MENTION]'s stuff, and am thinking about various ways to handle action recovery for elites and solos (including some of the ideas he's posted in this and earlier threads).

Happy to help.

Although I haven't self-consciously adopted the "up every creature one degree" approach, I do use, as my default, above level encounters where that is made up more by enemy numbers than enemy levels. It sounds like I'm not going to be doing any less of that at Epic!

Larger numbers of foes will work to a degree, but at a certain juncture start expecting your BBEG Solo wiped out in 2 rounds or less. That's when you need to start bringing in the Super-solo's...or in fairness other elements like fantastical terrain or skill-use defenses (as suggested by Sly Flourish).