• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 4E Fictional positioning and currency rules in 4e.

pemerton

Legend
Currency rules

How does what your dwarf cleric did feed into the currency of the game? I think it's pretty simple. He made some checks against DCs - DCs which have levels attached to them - and is therefore due some kind of consequence. The consequence, I suggest, should be equal to the level of the DCs.

How to translate the fictional positioning into concrete game mechanics? I think that's pretty simple as well. You just have to look at magic items that provide the same benefit - items such as the Ebony Fly (in this situation) provide a template that can be used to determine the effectiveness of the PC's resource!

<snip>

The only criticism I have of 4E is that it doesn't suggest this sort of use of its mechanics in the DMG.
In fact, it suggests the opposite - because it suggests that NPCs allies deduct XP from an encounter equal to their own XP value, which is quite different from your magic-item approach.

There is also the issue that, in some ways, a clever skill challenge that yields some minion allies is not radically different from a clever tactical manoeuvre that uses the vines (or whatever) to achieve some sort of success in a combat. This latter sort of thing is not subject to an XP tax nor does it suck up a magic item slot.

One of the reasons I really like 4E is because the currency of the game is so transparent. It's easy to give everything a level, and from that level you can determine XP, DCs, GP, encounter difficulty, and other game mechanics.

<snip>

I think the key is that everything has a level; from that, pretty much anything else can be determined.
I'm not sure. There are a lot of consequences that can flow from a skill challenge, for example, that are hard to model as conditions or magic items. The effects of these tend to be confined either to tactical considerations, or to bonues to skills that are pretty tightly mechanically defined (eg Arcana check used for a ritual, or knowledge skill used for a Monster Knowledge check). But what about a -2 penalty for Diplomacy with dwarves until the stain of defeat is removed? This is a "condition" that is not very well-defined mechanically, nor in terms of level (and it's certainly not subject to Remove Affliction). It also further distinguishes the dwarven NPCs from the Ebony Fly - there is no magic item I'm aware of that causes this sort of penalty when used/destroyed.

I agree that the mechanics set some parameters on all this - when an Nth level PC recruits some followers, for example, they're likely to be level N or so, and this in turns sets considerations on their effectiveness (using magic items, monsters, ranger beasts, daily summoning powers, etc as guidelines). Likewise, the system suggests as typical penalties either -2 (hindrance) or -5 (really serious hindrance), which are in the neighbourhood of 15% and 40% reductions in effectiveness given the 60% or so baseline for success assumed by the rules.

But here's what Vincent Baker says about currency (comment 25 on the linked webpage):

Cycles of effectiveness, resource, and positioning, all trading off one into the next. That's currency. (So however it happens in play, that's your game's systemic currency, whether you have character sheets or dice or whatever or none.)

And here (post #41) he says

Emily's spectacular insight here is the recognition of fully fiction-to-fiction, ad-hoc, but binding currency rules. "There is a gun present, and it's loaded" is a fact of (let's say) positioning, and "I shoot you" is an act of effectiveness. "If there's a loaded gun present, I can shoot you with it" is a currency rule. It's the same kind of rule, except fiction-to-fiction, as the mechanic-to-mechanic "If my character's rank score is greater than yours, I get +1 to attempts to intimidate you"!​

The currency rule that governs the consequences, for future interaction with dwarves, of being someone who led some dwarves to their deaths under the feet of a Behemoth, are in my view unstated in the 4e rules, and not easily ascertained just by focusing on level, and what follows from level.

even in the (in my opinion) flawed skill challenge write-ups that you see from Wizards, you can easily apply the fictional positioning into effectiveness - would you make Diplomacy a skill in a skill challenge with the dwarf fortress from which you gathered your recruits?
I'm not 100% sure where you're going with this. The answer, I think is yes (even "of course") - but the difficulty of those Diplomacy checks, and the fictional consequences of both success and failure, should be shaped by the positional fact of being someone who led some dwarves to their deaths under the feet of a Behemoth.

And the dwarf thing is just one example. I've got a drow worshipper of Corellon who is part of a secret cult of Corellon that has both drow and surface-elf members, and who is also a Demonskin Adept chaos sorcerer who hopes to harness the powers of the elemental chaos to defeat Lolth and demonkind. He's intrigued by the Queen of Chaos, of whom he's dreamt but knows little. And he has chaos runes that appeared spontaneously on his demonskins and on the inside of the eyelids after that dream. That's a lot of fictional positioning, which has implications in all sorts of places not only for setting up situations but for resolving them, but the approach I use is pretty ad hoc. For example, the fact that he's very obviously a cultist of some sort means that he attracts a lot of attention from devils, devil-worshippers etc trying to strike bargains. When this happens in the course of resolving a conflict it has implications for his effectiveness and resources. In effect, by choosing this positioning the player has brought it about that his effectiveness and resources will be affected in certain ways. But the rules that govern those consequences are pretty opaque and open-ended.

Similar things are true for the tiefling paladin of the Raven Queen (fictional positioning that effects interactions with undead, and catoblepases, and is also about to become relevant as they head to a city from the old dragonborn empire). The wizard scholar has more of his fictional positioning express mechanically (via rules for knowledge checks and rituals, mostly) and so the player has more obvious and mechanically determined currency rules governing the PC. But there are complexities even for this player. The PC carries two parts of the Rod of 7 Parts, which (in my game) is an artefact linked to Erathis, and also to old Nerath, and which the wizard uses from time to time to learn facts about Nerath, to identify old ruins, etc. I tend to treat these as knowledge checks which risk psycic or similar damage on a failure (as the item feedbacks, or the PC's prayer to Erathis is rejected, or whatever) - I guess this is probably a fairly standard use of page 42, but still it's not something that I feel the rules give as much guidance on as they could.

So anyway, I agree that level, and all that follows from it, helps - for me it is DC-setting that is most important in this respect - but there are other aspects of the currency rules that I find hard to pin down, and on which some guidance would probably be helpful.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
One thing that's pretty interesting to see with D&D 4E, in general, is that you'll often find that how a group handles it's Fictional Positioning is also related to how it's currency works in 4E.

<snip>

Notice that all of these, are valid possible rulings, and go from least powerful to very powerful. If you have stuff under a certain level of effect, players will just ignore the fictional stuff and stick to their powers, and if you have stuff over a certain level of effect, players will always be looking for fictional uses rather than their mechanical abilities.

Now, when you think about that range, you also start coming up with how much Fictional Positioning plays in the role of Currency, in -that- specific game. On one end, barely anything, on the other end, incredibly important!

<snip>

If you want to think about it really game-theory-like- D&D4E has a strong mechanical currency system, with a variable Fictional Positioning component- in some games, it has minimal impact, in others, it's all important (with regards to Currency as being described by Lumpley/Vincent Baker).
This makes sense to me. I think the variable contribution of the fictional positioning component is, if anything, even greater oustide of combat/tactical encounters. For some groups, presumably, the fact that a PC is a Demonsking Adept or a Warpriest of Moradin has minimal influence on how a social skill challenge is resolved. In my game, on the other hand, it's pretty front-and-centre.

On an only very slightly related note - Open Grave has a fun little buried tower scenario called "Bloodtower on the Moorland", for 12th-level PCs. I've had a fondness for buried towers ever since Best of White Dwarf Scenarios 2, which has a mini-adventure in a tower buried in the desert, and I'm hoping to use this Open Grave one as part of the Vecna-cult plotline in my current game.

But as presented, the scenario begins in this way:

The PCs are visiting or passing through a city that lies near the moorland. While taking a meal at a local watering hole, they overhear a resident relating the following story.​

Now, what the hell is going on when a Demonskin Adept, Warpriest of Moradin, Questing Knight, Radiant Servant and Divine Philosopher are taking a meal at a local watering hole? As opposed to, for example, dining in the halls of the baron or the mayor! I regard this as yet another weakness in 4e adventure design - beside the inherent lameness of so many of the plot hooks, they tend to expressly contradict the default fictional positioning of the game, which in relation to paragon tier PCs states (PHB pp 28-29):

In the paragon tier, your character is a shining example of heroism, set well apart from the masses.. . the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in the balance as you undertake momentous quests... When you face a dragon, it is a powerful adult who has established a lair and found its place in the world. Again, much like you.​

In my view shining examples of heroism, on whose deeds the fate of the world turns, who have found their places in the world and who are set well apart from the masses, don't start their quests in a local watering hole (absent special circumstances of the Aragorn variety). In my view it is this sort of bad adventure writing, as much as if not more than the mechanical design, that leads to the suggestion that there is no "progression" in 4e, and that as they level the PCs just go through the same dungeons with bigger numbers. (There is also a marked contrast between these sorts of adventure hooks and the campaign arcs sketched in DMG2, the Planes Above and Below, Demonomicon and Underdark - the campaign arcs show an awareness that changing tiers changes fictional positioning in a way that should matter to the play of the game.)
 

P1NBACK

Banned
Banned
On an only very slightly related note - Open Grave has a fun little buried tower scenario called "Bloodtower on the Moorland", for 12th-level PCs. I've had a fondness for buried towers ever since Best of White Dwarf Scenarios 2, which has a mini-adventure in a tower buried in the desert, and I'm hoping to use this Open Grave one as part of the Vecna-cult plotline in my current game.

But as presented, the scenario begins in this way:
The PCs are visiting or passing through a city that lies near the moorland. While taking a meal at a local watering hole, they overhear a resident relating the following story.​
Now, what the hell is going on when a Demonskin Adept, Warpriest of Moradin, Questing Knight, Radiant Servant and Divine Philosopher are taking a meal at a local watering hole? As opposed to, for example, dining in the halls of the baron or the mayor! I regard this as yet another weakness in 4e adventure design - beside the inherent lameness of so many of the plot hooks, they tend to expressly contradict the default fictional positioning of the game, which in relation to paragon tier PCs states (PHB pp 28-29):
In the paragon tier, your character is a shining example of heroism, set well apart from the masses.. . the fate of a nation or even the world might hang in the balance as you undertake momentous quests... When you face a dragon, it is a powerful adult who has established a lair and found its place in the world. Again, much like you.​
In my view shining examples of heroism, on whose deeds the fate of the world turns, who have found their places in the world and who are set well apart from the masses, don't start their quests in a local watering hole (absent special circumstances of the Aragorn variety). In my view it is this sort of bad adventure writing, as much as if not more than the mechanical design, that leads to the suggestion that there is no "progression" in 4e, and that as they level the PCs just go through the same dungeons with bigger numbers. (There is also a marked contrast between these sorts of adventure hooks and the campaign arcs sketched in DMG2, the Planes Above and Below, Demonomicon and Underdark - the campaign arcs show an awareness that changing tiers changes fictional positioning in a way that should matter to the play of the game.)

An astute observation.
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
One of the players in my 4E hack game recently joined a regular 4E game. She described a lot of the things I noticed back when I was playing regular 4E - players staring at their character sheets, etc. She described an encounter in a forest with vines on the map as difficult terrain, but when she was playing she didn't imagine vines - she saw squiggly lines drawn on a sheet of grid paper.

I think this makes it harder to use fictional positioning in play. I can imagine a wand or orb wizard grabbing a vine to hold out in front of him to help parry a club or mace (but not a sword or axe), or using the vines to garrotte a foe, or possibly a trip attack. I don't think these often occur to players because it's too easy to focus on the lines on the paper instead of what they represent in the game world.

I think if you drop minis then terrain, movement, tactical positions, cover, all of that moves from the real world into the imagined game world, and it's more likely that it will be interacted with.

The curious thing about this is that with a little bit of work (at least with some players), you can get the same kind of change without fully dropping the visual tools. We apply this work, because we move back and forth between using a grid and not, even within the same session.

But even so, I have definitely noticed through the years with our group that somewhat abstract tools work better in this regard. That is, a grid with Lego figures, or coins, or such, with bits of Lego for "trees" or what not--is better for visualization purposes than miniatures, representational terrain, etc.

So for any given player, I'd say that there is a point at which the representation becomes too concrete, and thus interferes with visualization. I suppose for some people this could be the mere existence of the grid, though I've never personally played with anyone that met it that soon. I have played with people for whom a modern Lego figure with appropriate armor and weapons was too far, but a few Lego blocks stacked in a vaguely humanoid shape was not. :)
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Two tangential but related questions on currency, for which I don't know the answers, but would like to:

1. Can you have meaningful currency without a reward cycle? And if so, how does this currency affect play outside that reward cycle?

2. How much does individual or group energy affect currency and its interaction with a reward cycle?

As an example, in our current group, when we are high energy, we could play Fantasy Hero, 3E, 4E, Arcana Evolved, Runequest, or Burning Wheel--and the games will be a lot alike in some ways. Sure, the mechanical representation will be very different, and the choices made will be driven by what those mechanics value, somewhat. But I could write up an Actual Play session as a story, tweaked enough to remove all mechanics, and you wouldn't know what system we used. The lower the energy level goes, however, the more distinct those systems become in play, for us.
 

pemerton

Legend
Crazy Jerome, I find this currency stuff a bit tricky, but will try to say something in response to your first question.

I think that currency rules can apply both within the fiction, within the mechanics, and from one to the other.

When the mechanical currency rules - whether purely mechanical, or also touching the fiction - are not supported by a play group's reward cycle, my feeling is that either (i) that aspect of the game will be ignored or tweaked, or (ii) playing the game will become seen as increasingly a chore or duty rather than a more spontaneous pleasure.

A candidate instance of (i): part of the mechanics of classic AD&D is tracking each PC's alignment on the alignment graph, which can then result in change of alignment with all the mechanical ramifications of that - so we have fictional material (eg "My paladin slaughters the orc babies!") producing mechanical consequences (the GM marks the shift on the alignment graph) producing mechanical changes to effectivenss and resource ("Oh no! I lost my paladinhood") producing fictional consequences (the ex-paladin is now reviled by his peers, has to go on arduous quests, etc etc). For those groups who don't get any buzz out of alignment-focused play - it's not part of what they want to explore, they're not interested in it either as a source of challenge or of theme, and it's not a technique that helps them get something that they do want - then the alignment tracking rules are likely just to be dropped: players write an alignment on their sheets at PC gen and then it is reference only when an enemy casts Unholy Word etc.

An example of (ii): at the high end of classic AD&D play, PCs get the ability to turn resources (namely, gp) into both fictional positioning ("Now I'm a lord!") and effectivness (castles, armies etc). The currency rules whereby this is played out tend to produce a very heavy degree of exploration in play - it's all about locating territory, reaching agreement with local nobles, hiring architects and engineers, designing the castle and calculating the cost, etc. The last time I played an AD&D game that reached these levels (about 25 years ago) I was still fairly new to RPGing, and we dutifully played all this out even though I don't think anyone particularly enjoyed it (even back then neither me nor my players were really into exploration-heavy play), because according to the rulebooks, Dragon magazine etc this was what playing D&D was all about.

For me, well-written RPG rules would make it clear what sort of play experience the currency rules (express or implicit) supported, to help players work out what they can expect to get out of the game, and what parts of it (perhaps all!) they should just disregard. Given that most don't, it instead took me many years of play plus reading the Forge essays to work some of this stuff out for myself.

If a group is all on the same page with respect to their attitude towards the fiction, then presumably they will be on the same page with respect to fiction-to-fiction currency rules, and will only apply these when it fits into some sort of reward cycle.

But given that in many groups creative agendas differ at least somewhat, I suspect that fiction-to-fiction currency rules can be one source of intra-group tension or even dysfunction.

For example, the whole "prone snake" debate seems to turn, in part, on different understandings of the currency rules that link the fiction "I am hitting a snake" to the fiction "The snake is now flipped onto its back and somewhat indisposed".

My objection to the plot hook for the Open Grave buried tower scenario can also be seen as turning on a disagreement over fiction-to-fiction currency rules: my view is that entering the paragon tier (a change in fictional positioning) should produce sufficient social/metaphysical status (a type of effectiveness) that, absent special Aragon-like circumstances, picking up rumours while eating at local watering holes is ruled out. In my view, whoever wrote the hook to that scenario disregarded a fiction-to-fiction currency rule that the game implicitly puts into play (in virtue of its characterisation of paragon status). If I was playing with a GM who followed the lead of Open Grave, and continually disregarded (what I take to be) that implicity currency rule, I have to assume that this would interfere with my reward cycle.

Does any of that make sense?
 


yeloson

First Post
1. Can you have meaningful currency without a reward cycle? And if so, how does this currency affect play outside that reward cycle?

2. How much does individual or group energy affect currency and its interaction with a reward cycle?


Vincent has a really good post on currency that you should probably check out on that:

anyway: Things on Character Sheets (2)

(Also, his archives are here, if you want to dig around: anyway: index of entries and stuff)

#1
A lot of games out there have pretty weak reward mechanics, but still otherwise decent currency cycles. (Think of the tons of games where you get a few points for just showing up, and not really rewarded for doing anything specific, and it takes months if not years of play for a character to significantly change mechanically).

There's many groups who pretty much don't care a lot about the mechanical rewards, but have keyed into a different reward aspect, usually around tying Fictional Positioning and Currency together.

#2
Tying into that, if all those games you listed ended up being similar, and requiring similar amounts of work for your group, then it sounds like none of them are particularly well aimed at what you guys are after. Basically, the high energy requirement is you guys having to work to get what you want, and I'd be hunting around for more games to see if something does it better.

When you're playing a game that has reward mechanics that tie into a type of play you're after, it just "clicks" and play propels itself - it feels really easy. You have a great time and you look back and go, "Wow, how did that happen?" - you didn't have to spend energy doing the work you wanted, because the game coordinates the group to working together, like a rowing crew- everyone is coordinated and it becomes easy and smooth.

Chris
 

Crazy Jerome

First Post
Read the Vincent post. I thought I had a good grip on currency and not so much on reward cycles. I'm beginning to suspect that it is the opposite. Still thinking about it.

Pemerton's answers helps too. I get the point, though I think our groups' preferences are different by degree. We can tolerate a relatively high disconnect between explicit mechanical ties and the fiction, because we are going to fill in the gap anyway--and probably are doing something skewed enough from standard that any stock solution would get replaced. However, we do want some ties.

Sometimes I think the perfect game for any individual is one that makes the minimum ties necessary for satisfaction, leaving the rest to be filled in. But this is a narrow window, and perfection isn't obtainable.

I'd buy the energy/game fit argument a lot more if Burning Wheel wasn't on that list. BW is explicitly and avowedly a game that requires high energy to function as intended. And part of that high energy in any system, and part of what makes such sessions similar, is clearly metagaming or social activities that, for us, are "gaming", but are not part of the system--nor would we want them to be.
 

yeloson

First Post
I'd buy the energy/game fit argument a lot more if Burning Wheel wasn't on that list. BW is explicitly and avowedly a game that requires high energy to function as intended.

Well, here's the thing- there's groups out there, for whom, BW's crunch is actually fun, and easy for them. Some people have an easy time coming up with interesting and consistent events in fiction and a hard time with mechanics, and some people are the other way around. You can look at the BW forums or some rpg.net threads where there are people who talk about how much it made their gaming -easier-.

(My group is sporadically playing Mouse Guard, which is less crunchy than BW, but still very crunchy. The GM is in love with it, he says it gives him all the support he needs. The rest of us are having a great time too, and this is coming from playing the very rules-light Primetime Adventures).

I've played some rules light games with some folks who find it energy intensive to have to make up details and such. Different needs for different folks.

Like I said, though, it sounds like your group has a need that is perpendicular to anything those games have provided- and it's about finding a game that fits that.

Chris
 

Remove ads

Top