Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[Wednesday Boy]

The new Legends and Lore by Monte Cook is up:
Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Out of Bounds)

Personally I think it's essential for the GM to have some solution for the challenges they present to the players. I think when the solution is a straight skill check against a TN, the game loses the necessity for creativity and becomes boring. But I've also played in games where the GM expects the PCs to come up with a solution for a challenge and the game stalls because the players have a hard time figuring out how to overcome the challenge and the GM has no idea how to get them around it. That usually leads to a long bout of frustration and then the GM unsatisfyingly handwaving the party through.

Ideally I like for the GM to have an idea of how the party could overcome the challenge but be open to solutions that the players come up with too. It rewards player creativity but has a failsafe so the game won't hit a roadblock.

Thoughts?

 

[delericho]

Another deeply unsatisfying column, I'm afraid. It seemed interesting enough, it seemed to be going somewhere, and then... it just stopped. I was left thinking, "yes, and...?"

FWIW, I agree with the OP: the DM should have at least one solution in mind for his challenges, without being slavishly bound to it. Otherwise, what happens if the players can't figure something out?

As for "Legends & Lore"... if this is leading up to 5e, then wake me when it's time. If these aren't leading up to 5e, then when are they going to announce the products that will reflect this new thinking? What was so fascinating about the old Design & Development column was that those were directly pointing towards new adventures such as "Shattered Gates of Slaughtergarde", and while the resulting products had distinctly mixed reviews, the fact that there was a clear end-point made the columns delightfully concrete. These columns lack that, and feel like just a lot of words that signify nothing.

 

[Hussar]

If you want a game where player ingenuity overcomes challenges, then you have to allow the players to actually dictate whether or not their ingenuity overcomes said challenges. Otherwise, it becomes a game of trying to play the DM. "Well, I know Bob would never put something in here without a lever or something in place, so let's search for that."

If, OTOH, you want the players to be truly capable of overcoming a challenge solely through their own ideas, then the players have to have the abilty to say that their ideas defeat the challenge.

I'm thinking that most people's ears would fall off if they instituted this sort of thing in D&D.

And, I know that I'd never play a version of D&D which revolves around Mother May I ever again.

I answered 5 on the poll, although, to be fair, it should be something like 4.9 since there's always exceptions to the rule. But, I want the rule to be there. Unless there is something specific about a situation as to why I can't solve the challenge through the resources on my character sheet, I want to be able to solve any challenge in the game through the application of the resources my character has.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not totally clear on what he means, here.

A red dragon immune to fire can still be killed by ice and swords and such. Those are all character abilities (attack rolls and lightning bolts!).

An invisible force-field can still be solved with player abilities: various divinations to figure out the ways around it, or Dispel Magic or Disjunction can get rid of it, and those are all character abilities.

Even straight skill checks -- Wisdom checks to notice the solution, Intelligence checks to figure out the solution, Strength checks to beat in the walls, etc. -- are character abilities the characters can use to solve the problems in front of them.

Character abilities are the ways the characters interact with the world they are in.

I know when I played 3e, I didn't worry about figuring out how the party could overcome the challenges I placed in front of them. I knew they had ways to do it -- they had ingenuity, and the abilities they had were multi-purpose tools rather than narrowly defined effects, and I had the "say yes" improv mantra, and that worked really well.

I know that was lost in 4e, but that's a feature of the abilities changing from general purpose tools to narrowly defined effects. Like Chris Perkins says, you can't put darkfire on a door, 'cuz it's not a creature, right?

But the solutions the party found in 3e weren't "outside" of a character's abilities, they were part of them. Perhaps used in a more creative way, but still part and parcel of a character's capacity for action.

Perhaps that's the more useful takeaway, here: the difference between an effect-based abilities system where what the ability does is narrowly defined, and a cause-based abilities system, where what the ability is is defined, and what it does is up to DM and player ingenuity. It's the difference between saying "Fireball deals 4d6 damage to creatures in a 4 by 4 cube within 10 squares of the caster" and saying "Fireball creates an explosion of fire. This deals..." etc.

Because I don't see how the players are going to accomplish anything, if not through their characters' abilities in some respect.

 

[delericho]

If you want a game where player ingenuity overcomes challenges, then you have to allow the players to actually dictate whether or not their ingenuity overcomes said challenges. Otherwise, it becomes a game of trying to play the DM.

Yep.

And, I know that I'd never play a version of D&D which revolves around Mother May I ever again.

Again, I agree, with one caveat.

If there is a pendulum between "player power" and "DM power", then I am inclined to think it has now swung a little too far towards "player power", and I would like to see that redressed somewhat. But I'm certainly not advocating a move (back) to a mentality of "the DM is god"!

I answered 5 on the poll, although, to be fair, it should be something like 4.9 since there's always exceptions to the rule. But, I want the rule to be there. Unless there is something specific about a situation as to why I can't solve the challenge through the resources on my character sheet, I want to be able to solve any challenge in the game through the application of the resources my character has.

I don't vote in their polls.

Where I disagree with you here is the "solve any challenge in the game through the application of the resources my character has" bit. I think it's acceptably, maybe even better, if sometimes (even "quite often"), the required resources aren't immediately on the character sheet, but are found elsewhere in the adventure. Also, if PCs are required to choose what to take with them (either directly in the form of their equipment, or indirectly via power choices), then I think it's equally fine if that leaves them less able to handle some challenges than others - they'll have an easier time elsewhere to compensate. (Although I suspect "less able", as opposed to "unable", is the important part.)

Oh, and "able to solve" of course doesn't mean "able to easily solve". I'm inclined to think that if the PCs just dive right in and throw dice, assuming average rolls, they should probably fail the adventure (however you define 'fail'). If they're smart or they're lucky, they should succeed at cost. And if they're smart and lucky, they should succeed quite easily. But that's an adventure design issue - it's all about setting an appropriate level of difficulty.

 

[FireLance]

My view is can be summed up as follows:

1. It must always, always, always be possible (I would go as far as to say probable - at least even odds) to overcome a challenge using the PCs' powers and abilities.

2. However, the most straightforward application of the PCs' powers and abilities should seldom be the best approach. Player creativity, ingenuity and out of the box thinking should be the factor that changes the success rate from 50% (or so) to 95% (or even higher).

In my view, the poll question only presents half of the ideal situation (almost as it it were intended to persuade you of the desirability of that half instead of seeking feedback). Yes, the best solution should always contain some element that is outside of the rules. However, there must always be at least one solution within the rules that allows the players a fair degree of success.

 

[LurkAway]

Isn't the implication analagous to having a "Page 42" that is more pervasive, and that game design could factor in more for "Page 42", and maybe even encourage its use, instead of keeping it mostly harmless or leaving it on the sidelines to gather dust?

The title is "out of bounds" which I think is a more diplomatic alternative to "out of the box thinking". Telling someone to think 'out of the box' may imply that they're deficient in creativitity or open-mindedness. 'Out of bounds' imples, to me, that there's nothing wrong with playing in the box because it is a controlled environment (thanks to rules support), but there are also joys to be had off the beaten path (as long as someone has the forethought to give you some guidance).

Even Rules of Three acknowledged that 4E might penalize those who tried to wander off the beaten path (in the case of inflexibility of class roles). Conversely, role-playing a blacksmithing career IS allowed to occur out of bounds. I think Monte is simply revisiting where/how/why to draw the lines.

 

[KidSnide]

1. It must always, always, always be possible (I would go as far as to say probable - at least even odds) to overcome a challenge using the PCs' powers and abilities.

I disagree with this pretty strongly.

First, I don't think there's a problem with having a challenge in the gameworld that the PCs have no realistic chance of solving. For example, returning Athas to a world of life and greenery is a perfectly good character motivation, but I see no reason why such a task should be solvable at all, not to mention solvable with character abilities.

Second, there are tons of fun challenges that aren't amenable to character abilities. I think the plot to the latest Clash of the Titans is a perfectly plausible epic adventure. The whole point is that there's a monster that isn't realistically defeatably by even the most badass heroes. Instead, the PCs need to identify, find and acquire another element of epic magic in the world in order to defeat the otherwise unkillable monster. Obviously, the movie featured one particular solution, but it's a big mythical world out there -- who's to say there weren't others?

Lastly, and most importantly, one of the primary joys of table-top gaming is seeing a situation where you have no idea what to do and then finding a way to advance the situation, hopefully for the better. If you check out the most popular story hours on this site, they are replete with challenges that require player thinking as much as character abilities. (Imagine all your PCs wake up with no memories as citizens of a city in a bottle.)

I've played games where it feels like you're just trying to guess what the GM (or module writer) is thinking, and I agree that it can suck. And I also agree that using your character abilities to kick ass and be awesome is a ton of fun. But I wouldn't want to play in a version of D&D where character abilities are the limit of what your character can do, or where player ingenuity doesn't play an essential role in the game.

-KS

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think that any problem that is required to advance the game to where the group wants it to go (whatever that means for the group)--should be readily solvable by character abilities. But outside of that sop to keeping the game moving and fun, anything goes.

Heck, one of my favorite ways to show the players that their choices matter is to give them several time-sensitive problems at once. They know there is no way they can solve them all. So creativity comes in deciding which problems are the most important to them, how many they can go after without too much dilution of effort, and if there is any way to delay a few of them and/or deal with the after effects. By definition, the bigger problem of, "we want to do all of these things," is impossible, even though no part of it necessarily is.

 

[vagabundo]

My view is can be summed up as follows:

1. It must always, always, always be possible (I would go as far as to say probable - at least even odds) to overcome a challenge using the PCs' powers and abilities.

I'd add that it does not always have to be obvious that these abilities will overcome a challenge or even that those abilities be in the current party at the time (maybe they can procure a ritual to overcome a challenge).

One thing that should be in the module is information about the nature of the challenge and what can be gleaned by the PC using their skills. At least then if there is a non standard solution the DM can make a fair rule using the in game logic; so having an invisible force field is fine if there is an explanation about the nature of the force field.