D&D 5E Legend Lore says 'story not rules' (3/4)

[Aenghus]

I have a number of issues with sim-ish effects adjudication.

All too often I have seen players punished by this sort of resolution when they don't think like the referee. For instance their attempted action gets assigned a very low chance of success after it's announced. Much of the time the player is forced to go through with the attempt even when the chance is vanishingly small.

Or they may simply forbidden from trying.

In the worst case, some negative effect on the PC is associated with the effect, typically with failure, but sometimes with success. Referees are more likely to allow players to change their mind in such cases, though I have seen PCs forced to attempt dangerous or suicidal maneuvers before.

Now players who are sympatico with the referee will request actions the referee looks favourably on and be assigned better odds, or even automatic success.

But this sort of play trains other players who can't read the referees mind in a variety of bad coping mechanisms. If they care about regular success, they stop trying any unusual actions and stick to documented actions with know rules for adjudication(which is exactly a regular accusation against 4e, and for an equivalent reason). Of if they care more about the occasional big win and don't mind regular failure, they may try repeated "all or nothing" tactics, accept the higher death rate, and maybe get a rare jackpot success result.

Now, I realise a bunch of the above could be seen as "bad refereeing" but it's also maybe symptomatic of the referee caring for gameworld fidelity as much as or more than player enjoyment/agency.

Whereas a more freeform approach perhaps sacrifices fidelity in return for improved player agency.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes they can be, no that will not always work at every table.

I'd imagine by a default they probably should be left open-ended and more about the big idea than about the specific rules implementations. Fireball creates a big ball of fire, that does whatever you think a big ball of fire can do in this situation.

Me, I like to use rules as props, so quick, easy-to-run rules for how a fire spreads across terrain and variable flammability of materials and the like comes in real handy. I want to use this as a thing that is independent of my control, to spur on more interesting events that end up even surprising me as a DM, situations that the whole group needs to work with.

But in either situation, the important thing about the fireball spell is that it creates a ball of fire. That ball of fire happens to deal several d6's of damage in the area of the ball of fire, but the point of the spell isn't to do Xd6 fire damage to Y targets. The point of the spell is to create a ball of fire. Whether the rules that flow from that are explicit or in DM control is less important than the fact that a ball of fire is, indeed, created, in the fiction, when you cast fireball.

If WotC's focus on "story" helps ensure that a fireball is defined first, foremost, and occasionally exclusively as a big ball of fire that a wizard makes, and simply uses things like targeting lines, damage lines, and range increments to support that story, then we won't end up with a situation where a DM isn't going to allow you to target objects because "balance." Your fireball might not light the town on fire, but there's gonna be a reason in the story for that, not just a rule nested in the targeting line of the spell's effect description that contradicts common sense.

It's the "knock an ooze prone" situation. If 5e supports the idea that knocking something prone is first, foremost, and sometimes exclusively, "knocking them to the ground," and uses things like "takes a move action to get up" as ways to support that story, then we don't end up with a situation where someone gets to knock an ooze prone -- something that makes perfect sense in the rules, but requires some mental contortions to think about in the story.

I think there are 2 things here. The "fireball is for making a ball of fire in the story" is one thing, "knock an ooze prone" is a different thing. The fireball simply involves the concept that the rules are just conveniences to support telling the story. So the 4e fireball and the 2e fireball are equally fine, or they should be judged on the ease of use and expressive power of their rules anyway. I can understand complaints about presentation of this kind of stuff in 4e, somehow or other people read the 4e stuff and mysteriously concluded that all you could do was slavishly ape out the mechanics exactly as written and play some sort of weird board game. I have to say that mystifies me, but it seems common enough that it is hard not to at least suspect that the way the game was written inspired that.

The prone ooze thing is different. You could simply put it in the same bin as an underwater fireball (I'm just going to ban that) but it is more cleverly an example of refluffing. 4e chooses, quite rightly, to eschew a vast long list of conditions. The ones that are provided clearly aren't going to cover every situation fluff-wise but can easily provide perfectly good mechanics. Thus there are various solutions including "just use the mechanics of prone and narrate it as something appropriate", "disallow it", and "substitute some other condition like dazed". I'm a bit puzzled as to why this garnered so much attention really. We ran into it around week 3 of our 4e experience and I just said to myself "Oh, look, this is great, there aren't a billion little rules to remember! OK, you plunge your sword into the ooze, pinning it to the ground! (etc)"

 

[Ratskinner]

I can understand complaints about presentation of this kind of stuff in 4e, somehow or other people read the 4e stuff and mysteriously concluded that all you could do was slavishly ape out the mechanics exactly as written and play some sort of weird board game. I have to say that mystifies me, but it seems common enough that it is hard not to at least suspect that the way the game was written inspired that.

I believe that a big part the problem was putting the flavor text first, rather than last, int the power descriptions. Many folks coming to it traditional mindsets will see the flavor text as "what happens" and the rest as "how the rules represent this" in stead of the rules as "what happens in the mechanics-level" and the flavor text as "one way to narrate this." The role and usage of flavor text as strictly "one way to narrate this" didn't help any, because it makes it sound less like flavor text. If some of the powers had used more abstract flavor text, it might have helped break that mentality.

It may seem strange to say now, but I remember people having difficulty with this in the early years of MtG. I would run into folks trying to use the "feel" of the card to adjudicate it. (I don't play Magic currently, but this problem seemed to fade over time.) I think it helped that some Magic cards' flavor text was simply a quotation and nothing to do with the cards' functioning. (It did not help that the original wordings weren't very clear in many cases.)

 

[Ratskinner]

I think there can be an issue in having player resources produce effects adjudicated in this "gritty" or "sim-ish" way, when it is hard for players to substitute in other effects because of the way manoeuvres, spells etc are defined and parcelled out.

Compare a more freeform system, where you can't knock oozes prone, but where your abilities are not limited to knocking oozes prone because you can use your abilities to set up a different sort of complication.

As I replied to @Ratskinner in another current thread, I think 4e is trying to be a type of "free descriptor" game, and knocking oozes prone is an instance of this: "prone" is really a label for a slightly more generic movement related complication, and being literally prone is only the most common form it takes.

Yeah, that's just one of those things with 4e's not-so-free descriptors. You're gonna have things like this.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have a number of issues with sim-ish effects adjudication.

All too often I have seen players punished by this sort of resolution when they don't think like the referee. For instance their attempted action gets assigned a very low chance of success after it's announced. Much of the time the player is forced to go through with the attempt even when the chance is vanishingly small.

Or they may simply forbidden from trying.

In the worst case, some negative effect on the PC is associated with the effect, typically with failure, but sometimes with success. Referees are more likely to allow players to change their mind in such cases, though I have seen PCs forced to attempt dangerous or suicidal maneuvers before.

Now players who are sympatico with the referee will request actions the referee looks favourably on and be assigned better odds, or even automatic success.

But this sort of play trains other players who can't read the referees mind in a variety of bad coping mechanisms. If they care about regular success, they stop trying any unusual actions and stick to documented actions with know rules for adjudication(which is exactly a regular accusation against 4e, and for an equivalent reason). Of if they care more about the occasional big win and don't mind regular failure, they may try repeated "all or nothing" tactics, accept the higher death rate, and maybe get a rare jackpot success result.

Now, I realise a bunch of the above could be seen as "bad refereeing" but it's also maybe symptomatic of the referee caring for gameworld fidelity as much as or more than player enjoyment/agency.

Whereas a more freeform approach perhaps sacrifices fidelity in return for improved player agency.

Right, so there is also a camp of 4e advocates who are militant about the rules being applied EXACTLY as written all the time without regard to narrative circumstance. The argument being that the referee has no business getting his narrative in their agency. They rail against anything at all vague, open-ended, etc, and consider options like the Linguist feat to be utterly useless because the DM could just have the NPC talk Common if he wants a conversation to happen.

So, yes, all of these are pathological. However everyone has their agenda and their game. 4e suites me in the way it does Pemerton, terms are free descriptors, etc. I think the danger though is if you were to adopt overly neutral language then the game comes across as stripped of any character at all. You've removed the problem of people fixating on prone and having an issue with prone oozes, but you've also left them ENTIRELY to their own means to imagine what the authors of the game had in mind when they created the "overextended" condition. One option is the MHRP sort of solution where all consequences are covered by one mechanic, a 'disadvantage'. I notice this is one of the consequences of DDN's Advantage/Disadvantage rule, you could simply use it in this fashion as a universal condition. However, it sounds like the flip side of it in MHRP is that the players are left to decide what sorts of narrative-based restrictions need to apply (IE if the character is restrained he gets a disadvantage, but the players would then have to also decide he can't move, maybe can't use some types of actions, etc). Clearly this will work for some people, but may not for others. At the very least it means that there has to be rich flavor text somewhere to supply the narrative with some material to work on, nor is such a system likely to please the above mentioned 4e "precise interpretations" people. I guess maybe the rules could go into some detail about complications, so a given power might provoke disadvantage but also 'knock prone', which then invokes another set of rules. Or the rules could simply make it explicit that while the condition is 'prone' that even if a creature can't logically be knocked prone it still gets the disadvantage.

 

[D'karr]

Now, I realise a bunch of the above could be seen as "bad refereeing" but it's also maybe symptomatic of the referee caring for gameworld fidelity as much as or more than player enjoyment/agency.

Whereas a more freeform approach perhaps sacrifices fidelity in return for improved player agency.

I think this has to do A LOT with whatever view the DM has as to what the PCs are supposed to be within the genre fiction.

If the DM views the PCs as simply another character in the overall "story" then the PC will be treated as just a character in the story. They have no more, or no less influence than any other NPC. I personally find that approach very boring from a player perspective. However, if the DM views the PCs as the actual protagonists in the "story", then his adjudication should follow suit. I prefer this approach as both a DM and a player. I think it brings a lot more to the table.

In Return of the Jedi, in the scenes with the "heroes" fighting outside Jabba's barge, you see the heroes confronted with "seemingly" insurmountable odds, and not everything goes as planned. However, at no time is the failure of the plan, or the odds against them setup the situation for the heroes to be out of the action. When the cannon on Jabba's Barge fires at the skiff with the heroes in it, it does not obliterate it from existence. It simply stops it from moving, and forces it to tilt to one side, sending some out of the skiff, but not into the jaws of the Sarlacc. When Luke jumps across from the skiff to Jabba's Barge, he "misses" and doesn't land where he wants. But he doesn't land in the desert floor with no option to stay in the action. However, when Bobba Fett gets slammed against the side of the barge by his "out of control" rocket backpack he does not get to come back in the action. That's the difference between an NPC (Bobba Fett) and an PC (Lando & Han).

When C3-PO and R2-D2 are headed to Jabba's palace there is not a prolonged scene with travel to the palace, the action picks up where it's significant - right outside the doors.

In a New Hope when C3-PO and R2-D2 are traveling through the desert, the scene takes a few seconds to show that it's lonely and hot. But the scene picks up with C3-PO waving to the Sand Crawler, and R2-D2 being ambushed by Jawas. The long and prolonged travel through the desert is pretty much obviated.

Genre conventions are different across different games and genres. The expectations from players and DMs also need to be different. Heroic High Fantasy (D&D, Star Wars), is different than Horror (CoC, Call of Cthulhu) or Hard Science Fiction (Traveller, 2010). As a player and DM I come to the game with different expectations from CoC than I do from D&D. And Star Wars the movie is not classified as Science Fiction for a reason, it's classic Space Opera. The genre conventions are different, the situations encountered are different, and the protagonists behave differently in each.

However, boring is boring no matter how you slice it. If a particular event in the game is leading to boredom it should be severely sped up, or completely excised whichever is faster/easier.

 

[Ratskinner]

One option is the MHRP sort of solution where all consequences are covered by one mechanic, a 'disadvantage'. I notice this is one of the consequences of DDN's Advantage/Disadvantage rule, you could simply use it in this fashion as a universal condition.

Yes. It is a very simple and handy mechanics, but it only has one setting. Its totally defined by conditions under which it is granted or not.

However, it sounds like the flip side of it in MHRP is that the players are left to decide what sorts of narrative-based restrictions need to apply (IE if the character is restrained he gets a disadvantage, but the players would then have to also decide he can't move, maybe can't use some types of actions, etc).

The trick, which hopefully players learn quickly, in such games is to make the descriptors more refined rather than cover them with "keyword" terms like we are used to in WotC-era D&D. So, an MHRP version of Entangle would place "tangled up in vines" on its target, rather than a "restrained" condition. In particular, conditions/effects that are big "on/off" switches (like "unconscious") usually have specific rules to restrict them. This has advantages and disadvantages, but mostly advantages, IME. For example, if you're "restrained" you are subject to whatever movement restrictions the game evinces to that condition, regardless of its source. However, if you are "tangled up in vines" then your opponents might use that to restrict your movement, hinder your attacks, or even try to drag or trip you by grabbing the vines you trail. The mechanics are then much more evocative of the actual fiction. On the other hand, as you note, they are somewhat dependent on the players' collective creativity. IME, its much harder to get experienced D&D players to think beyond keywords than it is to get new players to use such systems.

Clearly this will work for some people, but may not for others. At the very least it means that there has to be rich flavor text somewhere to supply the narrative with some material to work on, nor is such a system likely to please the above mentioned 4e "precise interpretations" people. I guess maybe the rules could go into some detail about complications, so a given power might provoke disadvantage but also 'knock prone', which then invokes another set of rules. Or the rules could simply make it explicit that while the condition is 'prone' that even if a creature can't logically be knocked prone it still gets the disadvantage.

No argument that some folks just can't stand the fluidity of it all. I wouldn't say you need flavor text per se, but expectations around the table should be clear. The big problem here, is that while 4e has not-quite-freeform descriptors, you need system permission to use them (through having a power or whatnot.) Since 4e doesn't want to screw people, it makes that merely flavorful and applies them regardless. Thus giving the narrative headache of the "prone" Ooze, so that Captain Tripper doesn't suddenly feel useless. Systems that use freeform descriptors generally don't restrict which or what ones you have access to, other than through narrative sense.

 

[Aenghus]

I think this has to do A LOT with whatever view the DM has as to what the PCs are supposed to be within the genre fiction.

Agreed.

In Return of the Jedi, in the scenes with the "heroes" fighting outside Jabba's barge, you see the heroes confronted with "seemingly" insurmountable odds, and not everything goes as planned. However, at no time is the failure of the plan, or the odds against them setup the situation for the heroes to be out of the action.

Yes, this is something I have learned to do over the years, resolving PC actions with some discretion to keep them in the action, albeit disadvantaged, rather than just remove them as may happen to a lowly NPC.

For instance a lot of mid to higher level D&D scenarios feature opportunities to fall long distances, which even if survived can effectively remove many PCs from an action scene. Cliffs, chasms, high buildings, flying ships, castles and cities all provide PCs with the danger of plunging to their doom, with return difficult to impossible for many PCs unaided.

This might have been ok when the player could make up a new PC during the fight they were missing, but doesn't make sense if the PCs are treated as protagonists rather than just a random person in the world.

So in these instances, I prefer have PCs end up hanging onto someting, either to clamber back up where they came from, or to await rescue by others like Luke Skywalker under Cloud City.

When C3-PO and R2-D2 are headed to Jabba's palace there is not a prolonged scene with travel to the palace, the action picks up where it's significant - right outside the doors.

IMO this is a different technique, scene editing rather than different action resolution between important characters and mooks, though the motivation, keeping the action moving and coherent, is the same.

Genre conventions are different across different games and genres. The expectations from players and DMs also need to be different. Heroic High Fantasy (D&D, Star Wars), is different than Horror (CoC, Call of Cthulhu) or Hard Science Fiction (Traveller, 2010). As a player and DM I come to the game with different expectations from CoC than I do from D&D. And Star Wars the movie is not classified as Science Fiction for a reason, it's classic Space Opera. The genre conventions are different, the situations encountered are different, and the protagonists behave differently in each.

True, I don't play horror games because I hate the removal of agency that strongly features in such games.

However, boring is boring no matter how you slice it. If a particular event in the game is leading to boredom it should be severely sped up, or completely excised whichever is faster/easier.

Boredom is an idiosyncratic emotion, so maybe some players may be bored while others are engaged. This is where referee skill comes in and why refereeing is difficult. Particularly when all the players are engaged happily in a scene but the referee is bored or unhappy, which may call for a real world discussion if it happens more than once.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think this has to do A LOT with whatever view the DM has as to what the PCs are supposed to be within the genre fiction.

If the DM views the PCs as simply another character in the overall "story" then the PC will be treated as just a character in the story. They have no more, or no less influence than any other NPC. I personally find that approach very boring from a player perspective. However, if the DM views the PCs as the actual protagonists in the "story", then his adjudication should follow suit. I prefer this approach as both a DM and a player. I think it brings a lot more to the table.

.

I think the issue largely boils down to how people approach this. It isn't just the GM, it is the group. When I play D&D I see myself as a character in a world, not as a character in a story, and so if my GM approached the game the way Aenghus wants (or if the rules support that) I tend to get frustrated. So I think going in knowing what your group's expecations are is what is important and making sure the rules set you are using supports that is also key.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I


Whereas a more freeform approach perhaps sacrifices fidelity in return for improved player agency.

I sort of agree this where things turn. The problem is if the rules support player agency over setting fidelty, that will bother groups who want setting fidelty. If you o things the opposite way, the you have the reverse problem. I can assure you, just as it bothers you when the GM makes a judgment against your character based on what he thinks would plausibly occur, it bother me when the GM lets you do something because it is genre appropriate or dramatic, but flies against what I regard as plausible. I think this is a genuine style divide and the best solution is to acknowledge that and come up with mechanical options that allow both sides to get what they want without imposing it on the other. I think where they made a mistke last time, was favoring one approach. It would be a mistake to do that again (even if they favor my style). Clearly this matters a lot to players and I think most of these debates over 4E ave involved lots of discussions and arguments over genre, believability, story versus setting etc. it really seems to be at the heart of a lot of the division. Probably wise for them to explore.