Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6008525" data-attributes="member: 42582">You flag it as an open question. I tend to regard the question as settled - hit point style combat is conflict resolution, via task+consequence (as per your Vincent Baker quote - though this may have been less so in classic D&D, because the morale and evasion rules introduced an extra dimension into the game that complicated the determination of consequences, and hived them off from the main task-resolution component).My problem with it is that, prior to 4e, it tends to make "death" the only consequence - so it's conflict resolution with very narrow and unhelpful stakes.I think the packing of PC build elements in 4e is quite important. I think of them as something of an alternative to the "flag" function of HeroWars/Quest descriptors or BW beliefs: instead of the player getting to set them him- or herself, s/he chooses them from a really long list that WotC sells to him/her!D&D has always had these "colour" flags, of course: I'm a dwarf, or an elf, or a hobbit. 4e is different, in my view, in embedding central thematic issues into many of those choices. In 4e, being a dwarf, or a dragonborn, or a tiefling, or a drow, matters within the cosmological conflict that underpins the game. (Some of the colour choices are weaker in this respect - elves and halflings in particular as races, and some of the more pedestrian paragon paths, like (say) Pit Fighter.)The same permeation of the cosmological conflict, and the themes it connects to, is found in the monsters which (as Worlds & Monsters explains) have been deliberately revised and in some cases rewritten to fit into the bigger picture in this way. (Eg Giants as the servants of the primordials; Azer and Galeb Duhr as dwarves who did not escape servitude to the giants ant titans; the relationships between undead, Orcus, Vecna and the Raven Queen.)It's pretty vanilla narrativism, but 4e in my experience does enough to get out of the way (none of the mechanical and exploratory minutiae that get in the way of scene-focused play) and enough to offer support (via the various story elements I've just mentioned), to be a tenable vehicle for narrativist play. Of course it won't do anything that requires moving beyond either generic or distinctly D&D-ish fantasy tropes, but that comes with the territory.The key is to look at it through the lens of Burning Wheel. In Burning Wheel, task resolutin + "let it ride" = conflict resolution. So, in a 4e skill challenge, task resolution + "N successes before 3 failure" = conflict resolution. This particular structure can impose some harsh discipline on the GM, and can test your narrative skills - but my feeling is no more than (say) narrating a BW Duel of Wits: a GM in a DoW is always going to have to narrate the response to a Dismiss, for example, having regard to whether or not it succeeded; and likewise a 4e GM has to narrate the consequences of a check in a skill challenge having regard to where it fits in the "N before 3" sequence.Framing, yes. D&D 4e utterly presupposes GM authority over scene-framing. But that is not at odds with narrativism: I think it is pretty central to a standard narrativist approach (as per the <a href="http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">Eero Tuovinen blog</a> that I think I also linked upthread).Stakes, though, are a more complex matter. The DMG on p 72 saysDefine the goal of the [skill] challenge and what obstacles the characters face to accomplish that goal.But the DMG also says (on p 103) thatYou should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. . . Remember to say yes as often as possible!To which the PHB, on p 258, addsYou can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. . .  Quests can also relate to individual goals . . . Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.That implies a degree of player setting of goals, as well as player flag-flying.The PHB also says (pp 9, 259):Noncombat encounters also include social interactions, such as attempts to persuade, bargain with, or obtain information from a nonplayer character (NPC) controlled by the DM. Whenever you decide that your character wants to talk to a person or monster, it’s a noncombat encounter. . . A skill challenge occurs when exploration (page 260) or social interaction becomes an encounter, with serious consequences for success or failure. . . [W]hen you spring a trap or face a serious obstacle or hazard, you’re in a skill challenge. When you try to persuade a dragon to help you against an oncoming orc horde, you’re also in a skill challenge. . . Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks until you either successfully complete the challenge or fail.To me, that all implies that players get to set the goals for at least one important category of non-combat encounters resolved as skill challenges, namely, social encounters.Now I'm not going to insist that any of the above is crystal clear. As is often the case with D&D, they are trying to do multiple (and contradictory) things at once, like supporting both adventure path play (which is about as anti-narrativist as you can get) and something much more player-driven. But I think it shows they are clearly envisioning, as one mode of play, players setting stakes and goals, in part expressed via play and in part expressed via various forms of flag flying, including quests, background, and incorporation of story elements into PC builds.And the system mostly doesn't actively push against this (contrast AD&D 2nd ed, which, mechanically, does push against what it says play is meant to be about) and in some ways actually supports it!In my thinking on this stuff I'm a pretty orthodox Forge-ite who has read a lot of Luke Crane, so I don't think I can agree with this. The action resolution mechanics have to be solid enough to deliver meaningful successes or failures without the exercise of GM force, or else the players' choices won't bite in the way that is needed to support narrativist play.This is a big problem for Rolemaster, outside of combat: while the character build mechanics are great, producing these richly developed PC with flags all over the place, the non-combat action resolution mechanics are a bit of a let down, with more-or-less arbitrary GM setting of target numbers and no way, outside of GM fiat, of introducing and resolving complications in the course of resolution.My narrativism is pretty light. The main technique I try to use is to open up space for the players to inject their own meaning and judgements into the situation, which means (i) following their flags, and (ii) renouncing plot authority. I don't presuppose what the right answer is. Which has resulted in deals for the redemption of slaves from duergar slave traders, swearing (limited) fealty to Kas, and murdering unconscious hobgoblins and helpless devil-worshippers in cold blood. But has also resulted in restoring a ruined temple of Erathis (with a side helping of Bane as part of a compromise deal, and with waterside thugs recruited to be temple guards and tarrif collectors), rescuing and redeeming a fallen paladin of Bahamut, freeing hobgoblins on their own parole, recruiting Bane-ite cultist child soldiers to be town guards instead, and honouring a promise, not entirely freely given, to spare the life of a Torog cultist in return for her handing over of information.For me, the "now" in "Story Now" doesn't have to be right this very second. I'm happy with a gentle pace and things being light. I think of my game as in many respects really quite traditional. It's mostly from posting on these boards (and also the ICE boards) that I get a sense of the techniques that I use (like my approach to GM force - less rather than more - and my reliance on metagame considerations rather than extrapolation via ingame causality for scene framing) as being less than entirely conventional.I've done my best to explain why I think 4e is hospitable to a fairly vanilla, hackneyed fantasy narrativism in a way that earlier versions of D&D are not. But also read my next post!</blockquote>

Verification