D&D 5E Changes in Interpretation

[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).