D&D 5E If an option is presented, it needs to be good enough to take.

[Manbearcat]

@GreyICE

My permission was granted when I posted it for you so have at it Given your elaboration above, no, I definitely wouldn't use the fireswarm in your Skill Challenge as it seems that it may compromise the thematic thrust (and possibly pacing) of your Skill Challenge and would be problematic (to say the least) for your pyromancer.

If you have a boss fight at the end of the combat, and you wish to consider the Smoke Inhalation/Exposure condition track there are a few things to this part:

1) The Condition was a short-term condition and could be moved upward one state by a Short Rest (with a successful 1st party Endurance or 3rd party Heal Check equal or better to the condition DC) or automatically removed completely by an Extended Rest.

2) Dazed was (save ends) with a save moving you back to the prior Condition of - 1 Defenses, Skills/Ability Checks, Attack rolls. Any PC suffering from the final state of Dazed on their turn accrued an automatic failure in the Skill Challenge. In your ensuing fight you would have a dazed (save ends) (potentially...no one may be affected depending on your Attack vs Fort and End/Heal DC...I set them to hard...the Skill Challenge was devised as the equivalent of a + 4 encounter) or it could be removed by way of a power that removes daze or a standard action 1st party Endurance Check or 3rd party Heal Check (track DC). What might be more concerning is PCs suffering from the - 1. What you may want to do is treat that secondary state as an Aftereffect (save ends) and then have the PCs reach the initial stage upon the save, lose a healing surge and the effects of the exposure are removed. Its a short term condition that is supposed to have temporary implications mechanically (pacing and difficulty) and within the resultant fiction (fear, desperation and urgency). Further, unless your boss fight is going to take place in a burning building, they wouldn't be exposed to it any further and suffer the possibility of re-exposure or moving further down the track. If you want the fight to be in a burning building and want the track to affect the encounter then I would suggest treating it as a + 1 or + 2 (dependent upon the DC you set) by itself for your total encounter formula.

One last thing to note, if you use this, it does have action denial and debuff consequences. Besides the obvious extra danger imposed, it (I'm sure you could extrapolate this easily enough) has "grind-enhancement" functionality so be wary of using enemy brutes and/or consider some really fun, and powerful, Limited Use Terrain Features that industrious PCs can take advantage of to augment their damage capabilities. There is nothing like the PCs 1st party deployable resources being "nerfed" momentarily to get the PCs to ardently look for Limited Use Effects/Terrain outside of their proficiency (and therefore unmolested by their "nerfed" state). In my scenario I used a nearby river where the settlers had installed a system of wooden levees (one of these levees was used/disengaged during the Skill Challenge for 2 successes) to prevent flooding during the wet season and a reservoir during the dry season. While one of the PCs fought off the raging elementals the other two engaged in a mini-skill challenge to disengage the other levees (thus (i) flooding the plain which ultimately saved the forest and (ii) caused a heavy damage, slide 5 attack on the elementals and an ensuing damage 7, - 2 defenses aura to them as well) while the final PC deactivated the portal.

* Edit: Located the Condition Track. It was lvl 11 so this may need to be shifted for your game.

Smoke Inhalation/Exposure Level 11 Condition

Exposure: You make an Athletics or Endurance check in an area that is Lightly Obscured by Smoke or you are in an area that is Heavily Obscured by thick smoke.
Attack: + 13 vs Fortitude

Stage 0: The target recovers from the condition.
Stage 1: Initial Effect: The target loses a healing surge.
Stage 2: The target takes a -1 penalty to Attack Rolls, Defenses, and Skill/Ability Checks.
Stage 3: Final State: The target is dazed (save ends)

Check: At the end of each short rest, the target makes an Endurance check or a third party makes a Heal check. Each time the exposure condition is met while the target is currently afflicted with the condition, the target must roll an Endurance check (The target's stage of the condition cannot decrease from this roll.).

16 or lower: The stage of the condition increases by one.
17-20: No change.
21 or higher: The stage of the condition decreases by one.

 

[Neonchameleon]

@Neonchameleon , good posts.

In 3E, won't the wizard's INT bonus tend to close the gap between the two classes' skill points?

A little. But in order to have as many skill points as a 3.5 Int 10 Bard, a wizard needs an Int of 18. There's a gap - but if the bard wants to be a loremaster it's not that big. (And if the Bard needs perform (probably oratory) the Wizard needs Spellcraft).

 

[innerdude]

Narrativism isn't defined by any particular set of funky techniques. It's about (i) putting theme front and centre in play, and (ii) letting the players make genuine choices about how they engage it, and hence about what the overall play of the game says in response to it. I think any version of D&D can probably be drifted this way, and 4e is particularly suitable because it lacks many of the traditional D&D mechanics that get in the way of narrativist drifting.

Hmm, I think I'm approaching the concept of narrativism much differently. I wholeheartedly agree with your GM approach; when i realized that "story" had nothing to do with GM-driven metaplot, I made a quantum leap forward as a GM. Setting the situation, then letting the natural player interactions drive the fiction produced far more interesting and compelling "stories" than trying to force something I thought was "cool" down their throats.

However, it's never been my impression that that was the same thing Ron Edwards was referring to as "narrativism." Narrativism as I understand it is about exploring "theme," and in my mind, theme isn't about letting players explore a character concept, it's about setting up specific narrative spaces that invoke broader questions of morality and the nature of humanity. Character background by itself may or may not have any bearing on the types of "themes" explored in the fiction. Being a blacksmith and being politically allied with Baron Von Higgins across the river has no bearing on whether your RPG group, hypothetically speaking, is exploring the nature of religion as a political force.

What you're describing to me sounds much more like purest-of-pure high concept sim, wherein the point is to allow the player to "truly experience" the "thematic appropriateness" of what it means to "be a paladin," for example.

The disconnect for me there is that since D&D is, as so duly noted, heavily focused on combat, the idea of exploring what it means to "be a paladin" gets lost in the mechanical artifacts heavily present in all versions of the system. A truly narrativist system might have lots of mechanics for resolution, but those mechanics would revolve around setting up characters within an intellectual and emotional framework. Combat would likely be fourth or fifth down the list of options for task resolution--and D&D has never been that (and by all indications that's not changing in 5e).

 

[Manbearcat]

The disconnect for me there is that since D&D is, as so duly noted, heavily focused on combat, the idea of exploring what it means to "be a paladin" gets lost in the mechanical artifacts heavily present in all versions of the system. A truly narrativist system might have lots of mechanics for resolution, but those mechanics would revolve around setting up characters within an intellectual and emotional framework. Combat would likely be fourth or fifth down the list of options for task resolution--and D&D has never been that (and by all indications that's not changing in 5e).

Good post innerdude. I wanted to comment on this bit here. Where I come from on this is that the Creative Agenda which underwrites the table's primary pursuit is the key factor that interposes itself between a "Step on Up" table and a "Story Now" table in 4e (which will inevitably be an incoherent/hybrid one as outlined below).

- If you have a table whose predicate for ensuing gameplay is to explore the thematic infrastructure/questions embedded in their chosen archetypes (the grizzled naval veteran who swore to go down with the ship but in "the moment of truth" took the lifeboat while his mates went down to Davey Jones Locker...and now has to live with those demons and attempt redemption) and this pierces from the Social Contract through the Exploration through the Techniques to the Ephemera then you're playing Narrative. Techniques: (i) In 4e if milestones/APs are rewarded for actions/conflicts faced and resolved relative to those themes captured and acted upon you are playing Narrative. (ii) If you build your character around that concept (sacrifice, protection, instilling courage when cowardice is the easier option) and then deploy them under those auspices rather than optimization of build type for combat or non-combat resolution then you are playing Narrative. (iii) If some of your framed Skill Challenges are informed by genre tropes which specifically address/challenge those themes and the emergent play (success or failing forward) is relevant to those themes/archetypes then you're playing Narrative. (iv) If your minor quest XP is specifically derived by the fulfillment of, and fidelity to, these concepts when the respective, thematic in-game challenges manifest then you're playing Narrative.

- Conversely "Step on Up" agenda will take all of the above and insert Gamism interests - the tactical/strategic (rather than thematic) optimization of character builds toward the end of defeating challenges...and the rewarding of defeating challenges based upon that optimization and its culmination toward victory. You are not building theme/archetype here. You are building a "victory machine" and in D&D you are building a "synergistic victory unit." That will pierce the techniques of (i) milestone/AP rewards, (ii) character builds, (iii) framed Skill Challenges, and (iv) minor quest XP rewards. Addressing (iii) specifically; this is why I think many folks have trouble understanding the narrative capabilities of Skill Challenges...they're approaching them from a table with an implicit "Step on Up" agenda and they don't realize it. If they created an explicit "Story Now" agenda, understood it and practiced their technique, things would change dramatically (pardon the pun) for them.

Anyway, that is my take. No, 4e D&D is never, ever going to be a 100% pure Narrativist system (there are Gamist elements - success in combat or TPK - and "Step on Up" agenda implacably embedded in the system). There will be some incoherency. However, if those Gamist elements are not the overiding, animating factors that underwrite your Exploration and you use the Tools/Techniques (outlined above) within it to advocate a table-playstyle dynamic (Ephemera) of a strong, overtly expressed "Story Now" agenda...then Narrativist play can manifest quite nicely.

 

[pemerton]

The Smoke Inhalation/Exposure track is going to be interesting. I might think about that, especially since it gives the high endurance members a chance to shine.

In my hydra encounter (for upper paragon PCs), I used the following "fumes" mechanic: at start of turn, Easy End check, if fail 5 poison damage and slowed until end of your turn. Slowed is not as bad as dazed, but still has action denial elements and introduces some drama.

if you use this, it does have action denial and debuff consequences. Besides the obvious extra danger imposed, it (I'm sure you could extrapolate this easily enough) has "grind-enhancement" functionality so be wary of using enemy brutes and/or consider some really fun, and powerful, Limited Use Terrain Features that industrious PCs can take advantage of to augment their damage capabilities.

In both my beholder and hydra encounters, I used this dynamic: the PCs force moved the beholder onto a stalactite; and in the hydra encounter, there was the lava to play with.

 

[Manbearcat]

That would be another route to go.

The only thing that really matters here is whether Greyice is trying to capture the physical and environmental danger of the fire and create truly punitive consequences for the PCs themselves or if the primary purpose (which it seems to be) of the Skill Challenge is to focus on the terror, urgency and desperation of the city district's denizens and the human element of the crisis of an urban firestorm calamity (specifically NPCs that the PCs may be connected to). Only he can answer that but it seems that he is going that route so introducing punitive consequences to the PCs (and thus invoking their own fears - it truly was deadly and not necessary to these characters from a story perspective - and the corresponding courage and sense of duty that emboldens them to act - and the resultant heroism) such as firestorm swarms and smoke inhalation/exposure condition tracks may be subtraction by addition. Those things may just serve to distract from his aims. Yours may be simple enough that it serves as healthy "colour" though without being burdensome/incoherent with the theme of his Skill Challenge

When I did the one I listed above I was more concerned with the latter than the former. My Skill Challenge was more about the courage and fears of the Firefighters (the end) than the civilians (and their livelihood) afflicted by the firestorm (the means or the medium).

 

[innerdude]

... snip of lots of good stuff ...

I can't xp you from my android tablet for some reason, but that's an excellent explanation of narrative "drift."

Everything you said makes sense, and the exploration of theme as you described is much more akin to the types of experiences I'm looking for when I RPG.

I think there's three primary reasons I never could connect with 4e in that way. First, the skill challenge mechanics as presented in the original "Core 3" are abysmal. They're terribly presented, devoid of flavor, and have zero indication that they're meant to be used in such narrativist fashion. I suspect the vast majority of 4e players and GMs who gave up on the system after giving it a shot never reached that kind of epiphany of what skill challenges were capable of.

Second, and I know we've hashed this out ad nauseum, if you're coming from a "sim" agenda, 4e throws up roadblocks all over the place. I prefer narrativism to sim for roleplaying, but not at the expense of my internal verisimilitude meter. Since as a role player I've often only had the option of playing D&D (and only D&D), I've had to fight for a more narrativist agenda in my groups. When you're dealing with a group that isn't interested in narrativism per se, the easiest way to get some narrativist "drift" is through sim---create "realistic" social dynamics where narrativist explorations are at least feasible. 4e is certainly capable of this, but the rules-as-written aren't presented in such a way to actively support it. 4e's intense focus on tactical combat is just one more barrier to narrativist goals. As a narrativist, I often find myself wishing I could skip combats entirely when playing D&D. "Okay Scott, I get it, you totally kicked those thugs' arses. Can we move on to the more interesting part about how we're going to help the duke protect his citizens from falling prey to the street gangs?"

Third, and this has nothing to do with 4e mechanically, good narrativist play requires a high level of maturity and commitment from the group for it not to devolve into "pass the conch," or GM railroading. And frankly, no version of D&D has presented itself mechanically or stylistically as a game where narrativist agendas could grow and thrive outside of extreme adherence to social contract.

 

[pemerton]

Narrativism as I understand it is about exploring "theme," and in my mind, theme isn't about letting players explore a character concept, it's about setting up specific narrative spaces that invoke broader questions of morality and the nature of humanity.

<snip>

What you're describing to me sounds much more like purest-of-pure high concept sim, wherein the point is to allow the player to "truly experience" the "thematic appropriateness" of what it means to "be a paladin," for example.

That's an interesting comment, and it's a question that recurs in discussions of 4e.

For me, the key observation from Edwards is this one, under the heading "Sh*t! I'm playing Narrativist":

In Simulationist play, morality cannot be imposed by the player or, except as the representative of the imagined world, by the GM. Theme is already part of the cosmos; it's not produced by metagame decisions. Morality, when it's involved, is "how it is" in the game-world, and even its shifts occur along defined, engine-driven parameters. The GM and players buy into this framework in order to play at all.

The point is that one can care about and enjoy complex issues, changing protagonists, and themes in both sorts of play, Narrativism and Simulationism. The difference lies in the point and contributions of literal instances of play; its operation and social feedback.​

This is why I think of my game as narrativist: because theme and morality are being imposed by the player and GM. In episodes like the dinner with the Baron and Paldemar, the interrogation of the priestess of Torog, the negotiation with Kas, the resurrection of Malstaph as an invoker and even the taming rather than killing of the bear, it was the players who were imposing morality - deciding "what it means to be a paladin", or a warpriest of Moradin, or a demonskin adept, or an invoker in service to Erathis.

I think there are inconsistencies in the way Edwards explains narrativism - sometimes he emphasises self-conscious focus on theme (a more narrow definition that my game may not fit into), sometimes he emphasises that the value component is injected by the players rather than inhering in the situation and gameworld being explored (in the passage I just quoted, and in his discussion of The Dying Earth RPG), and that's what I have in mind in characterising my game as narrativist rather than high-concept sim.

In the end I don't think labels matter per se. I don't care about labels - I care about a game which is player-driven in relation to value and thematic emphasis. In classic D&D, the single greatest obstacle to this is mechanical alignment, which is why I'm resolutely hostile to it on all ocassions! 4e not only drops mechanical alignment and its trappings (like the "great wheel"), but it replaces them with a conflict-rich but unresolved cosmological situation and makes it easy for the players to locate their PCs smack in the centre of those conflicts.

This is what I have in mind (in conjunction with the purely mechanical features I mentiond uthread) when I talk about how 4e supports vanilla narrativism.