Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[Hussar]

One of the basic problems of "out of bounds" play is that it ignores the character sheet in front of you. In either direction really. Whether it's the smart/charismatic guy overplaying his 8 Int 6 Cha character, or the other way around where the character is that much smarter/more whatever than the player.

I played in a 3e campaign some years ago where the DM insisted we make 15 point buy characters. In his mind, anything higher than that was superhuman. Ok. Fair enough. I rolled with it. Made my character a "face" character. Yet, I was being consistently over played by the more talkative players in the group. It was always, "Let RP trump mechanics", and, basically, my character sheet was so much toilet paper.

IMO, why on earth would you play D&D if you were going that direction? There's all sorts of games out there that do that SO much better. 3e D&D is a pretty rules heavy (and 4e is no different in this regard) system where your character sheet is supposed to matter in the game world.

Now, I've no problem with a problem that is not solvable right now (directing this at Bill91's comment that there seems to be an idea that all problems must be resolvable right now). There's nothing wrong with a challenge that you have to come back to. That's great. But, again, this is only my opinion, that should be the exception and, when it does occur, don't let your group piss about for an hour banging their head on the wall.

Heck, there's nothing wrong with summing up. "You try everything you can think of and a few other things as well, and nothing works. You realize that you need something that you don't have right now." is how I would handle something like that.

But, for the vast majority of challenges, the PC's should be resolving them based on what's in front of them. It might be they have to go find a MacGuffin, but, then, engage the character sheet - Knowledge checks to learn hints of the MacGuffin, social skills to hear rumours, that sort of thing.

Whatever you do, don't just leave the players hanging.

 

[Balesir]

Two questions?

What if the D&D game rules say bend the rules for narrative effect and for the maximum game fun?

That's a poor rule, but I accept it's off the top of your head. Better would be to specify who creates the impromptu rules or judgements for "narrative effect and maximum game fun". D&D players have often, historically, assumed this to be the DM; that's a valid rule (and, if you want it, it should be stipulated in writing), but it's one that to my mind creates a sucky game more often than not. Something like PrimeTime Adventures spreads the impromptu judgement more widely among the players and incorporates a specified luck element, which is a much better way of doing it, to my mind.

Either way, though, this is a rule system and it should be designed by the designers to work well as a process and described in the game publications, not just left to vagueness and abdication of responsibility by the game designers.

For D&D, specifically, I would rather have a game-style, determinative rule set rather than a definition of whose judgement gets to be the deciding factor - but that is just a preference (based on the fact that I think the rest of the D&D system fits this mode better), not a specification of the "only way roleplaying rules should work" on my part.

Is chess an rpg?

No, it's just an example that shows that having fixed and immutable rules does not prevent creativity in approach and tactics.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6685059]LurkAway[/MENTION]

I'm not sure I compleltey follow your 3 Stooges scripts.

As far as the werewolf curse is concerned, I think there are two issues, aren't there. First, what is happening in the fiction to a PC under the curse? Second, what out-of-bounds thinking is possible to change/avoid the effects of the curse.

I think the answer to the first is fairly straightforward: as the inner beast takes hold, the PC enters an ever-more-wild rage, lashing out violently. You pose the question - why is the PC only lashing out against his/her allies? But isn't the answer to that that s/he is not - s/he's lashing out at everyone! The "lashings out" at enemies are represented, in the game mechanics by attacks made as standard actions under the normal combat rules. The "lashings out" at allies are represented in the game mechanics by attacks made as free actions pursuant to the curse.

There's room for strange stuff here, for example if an archer ranger or wizard is hit by the curse. Until that comes up, though, I'm not going to worry too much about it, or about how I might tweak the curse mechanics.

As to the second question, of out-of-bounds thinking - presumably Diplomacy as a standard action against a Hard DC could be used to calm an allied PC (and perhaps Religion, too, saying a prayer, or Nature to administer an earlier-brewed potion of belladonna etc). How long should the calming last? Maybe until the end of the cursed PC's next turn, with a save at the end of that turn to keep it going for another turn, etc.

And then a broader question - what exactly does this have to do with "bend[ing] the rules for narrative effect and for the maximum game fun"? The curse has been introduced into the game at the GM's discretion - so presumably the GM has already done something with narrative effect and fun in mind. The GM has presumably got in mind some way of lifting or alleviating the curse. If the players want to get in on the act by contributing their own ideas about both short-term and long-term alleviation, where do the rules preclude that?

The only place I can see where the rules might do that is the bit that says "The creature must fight the curse by itself and can receive no aid from its allies." I assume that this is meant to set up a contrast with diseases, where an ally's Heal checks can be used in place of a PC's Endurance check. If the designers are saying that nothing done by the allies of the PC can help, then that's (in my view) a bad suggestion. But to ignore it I don't need a rule that says "bend the rules". I just need to actually change the rules that govern curses - rules which are already optional, and which I have opted to introduce into the game. I don't see that I'm under any obligation (to my own players, to other players of the 4e game, etc) to either not use curses at all, or to use them only under the strictest intepretation of the WotC rule book, which would preclude any assistance of one PC by another in dealing with the curse.

 

[LurkAway]

I think the answer to the first is fairly straightforward: as the inner beast takes hold, the PC enters an ever-more-wild rage, lashing out violently. You pose the question - why is the PC only lashing out against his/her allies? But isn't the answer to that that s/he is not - s/he's lashing out at everyone! The "lashings out" at enemies are represented, in the game mechanics by attacks made as standard actions under the normal combat rules. The "lashings out" at allies are represented in the game mechanics by attacks made as free actions pursuant to the curse.

Pre-4E, if the curse rule did exist for whatever reason, it might be stated something like 'when [some condition], the afflicted PC attacks anyone in sight' and it would then be up to the player to roleplay that directive, along with the pros and cons of the obvious conflict of interest (a good reason for the rule to introduced with caution).

Pre-4E, I'd guess that curse rule would not have existed in the 1st place. What is the justification for its existence, other than to add a new tactical element to combat, which didn't have the same emphasis before 4E. Assuming that a lot of (but not all) of pre-4E game design was fiction-first, I'm not aware of any werewolf sources that have werewolves in human form lashing out in berserk mode against everyone. If anything, the very essence of the werewolf story was the wolf that hides in sheep's clothing until the fur hits the fan on the full moon.

(I only bring this up for comparison purposes, to show what I think are different perspectives on adapting fiction to RPG and that the 4E way is I think the more metagame-y way which can make fictional positioning more difficult).

The 4E solution is to codify 'attack anyone in sight' with a single simple rule. But since you've eliminated the nuance and complexity and context of a more freeform roleplaying solution, I think it treats the PC like a videogame character. It devolves into a farce if/when the players treat the 'abstraction' as an absolute automaton behavior that can be observed and predicted, diminishing the full spectrum of supposed berserkness into a manageable robotic quirk.

Yes, it is an optional rule. But it bothers me as heck that it was included at all, even as an optional rule, because I feel like roleplaying 'out of bounds' in 4E with such rules is to be always be 'fighting' the system, trying to bend it into something it's not, tweaking and ignoring and compensating for rules that were never intended to be designed in the first place for sandbox=style 'out of bounds' roleplaying.

Monte's article may not appeal to you because you enjoy the fictional space created within the structure of the current rules. But that's not what his article is about, and although the werewolf curse may be somewhat tangential, the design conventions behind it illustrates for me why some 4E rules make it such an exertion to get "out of bounds".

I don't think that Monte was criticizing 4E exclusively by any means, but I don't think that 4E escapes his criticism either using only page 42.

 

[nedjer]

The notion that older versions offer fewer solutions to problems is quite bizarre. Relying solely on having more pre-defined solutions excludes freedom of action and leads directly to the Cheese Problem:

Sooner or later players are going to come across cheese. The cheese may have many possible uses, e.g as food, as a doorstop, as bait or in a sport where lots of people race down a hill in pursuit of a cheese.

However, appallingly, most RPGs neglect to include rules about something as commonplace as cheese - there are simply no pre-defined rules on toasting cheese, let alone cheese sports.

So, we are left with a slightly wiffy predicament: either we wing it with the cheeses or we can't have meaningful cheeses in play. Which basically means this kind of fun is removed from play:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOyQBSMeIhM]Gloucestershire Cheese Rolling 2009 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Argyle King]

"Not every problem is solved by bashing on it. Some problems don’t have solutions at all—unless the players come up with them. If the players know that every challenge they face is going to be solved simply by the most straightforward application of their abilities, with only the vagaries of the dice being the thing that might actually bring defeat, the game is going to get dull for many players eventually."

- quoted from the article


Right there, that sums up most of my problems with the current edition, and is a big reason why I started playing games other than D&D. I still do play 4th Edition (as I've said elsewhere,) and I am capable of enjoying the game, but what I just quoted is one of the big disagreements I have with the game. I have to change my playstyle and mindset when I'm playing D&D.

 

[Quickleaf]

"Not every problem is solved by bashing on it. Some problems don’t have solutions at all—unless the players come up with them. If the players know that every challenge they face is going to be solved simply by the most straightforward application of their abilities, with only the vagaries of the dice being the thing that might actually bring defeat, the game is going to get dull for many players eventually."

- quoted from the article


Right there, that sums up most of my problems with the current edition, and is a big reason why I started playing games other than D&D. I still do play 4th Edition (as I've said elsewhere,) and I am capable of enjoying the game, but what I just quoted is one of the big disagreements I have with the game. I have to change my playstyle and mindset when I'm playing D&D.

Ive seen 4e players fall back on pre-defined powers in a soul-sucking dearth of creativity on multiple occasions. I would say the presentation of powers encourages lazy players (or brings out the lazy in kinda lazy players).

But that's more an issue of presentation.

Do you notice something hardcoded in the 4e rules that limits creativity? Or are you saying that it doesn't go far enough with improv guidelines?

 

[Argyle King]

Ive seen 4e players fall back on pre-defined powers in a soul-sucking dearth of creativity on multiple occasions. I would say the presentation of powers encourages lazy players (or brings out the lazy in kinda lazy players).

But that's more an issue of presentation.

Do you notice something hardcoded in the 4e rules that limits creativity? Or are you saying that it doesn't go far enough with improv guidelines?

I'm saying that "let's just bash it" is usually the best option for most problems due to the power level PCs are usually at and the numbers they can generate versus the numbers that 4E uses to build the rest of the world.

An easy example is having a trap as part of an encounter. One of the early 4E suggestions for how to mix skill challenges into an encounter was by including a trap which had a Disarm The Trap skill challenge. In theory, it sounds like a cool idea, but, in practice; unless there's something which prevents them from doing so or the DM says it's not possible, it's far easier, faster, and safer for the PCs to just attack the trap and destroy it.

Why?

Generally, the person who has the best chance at disabling the trap is probably going to be a Rogue or similar class. In the specific example of the Rogue, that's also your Striker - damage dealer. So the option of trying the skill challenge means that you're not only down a member of the party for 3-4 rounds, but that you're also missing one of the key damage dealers from the party. Even if somebody else is making the attempt, that means you are still missing a member of the party for a few rounds.

There's also the possibility of failure and making the encounter worse. Let's say that somehow the skill challenge is failed. Well, now you've just wasted however many rounds of actions for no benefit. Worst case scenario, the encounter now becomes more difficult because you've activated something else.

Now look at the damage output that some characters can do with even just an at-will attack, and compare it to what the DM advice given by 4E says HP should be for objects; also compare it to the listed HP and such for traps and objects which are listed. It's easily within the realm of possibility for the PCs to destroy the trap in one round and get on with the rest of the encounter. Why spend 3-4 rounds instead of just breaking it in one?

My point is that while other options are a available to deal with problems, they are often subpar options unless there is a set of special circumstances which makes them more viable. Even then, just beating on a problem until it goes away tends to be the best solution to a lot of problems in 4E due to the numbers a PC can easily generate with an attack or ability versus the numbers that the system uses to build the world that the PCs are part of.

 

[LostSoul]

What is the justification for its existence, other than to add a new tactical element to combat, which didn't have the same emphasis before 4E.

This is what the werewolf's curse does in the game, in my opinion:

1. Strategic Choice

"The moon is full, and you hear the baying of hounds on the moor."

The players have two basic options; stay and fight or run away. Let's assume that the players also know about the effects of Werewolf Lycanthropy - or if they don't, when they ask the DM he tells them.

Which choice they are going to make depends on what they are trying to do and how their party is built.

* If they have a party build that relies on standing next to each other, that's going to hit them harder than if they rely on movement around the battlefield.
* If where they are going is within the moor, they might not have the choice to run away. (They might ask about belladonna and the DM can whip something up: x vs Fort, some (10/20/30) ongoing damage (save ends); both the attack and damage is based on how much you need to eat or drink - which will be set by the strength of the curse, that is, the werewolf's level.)
* They might have time to wait out the full moon in the hopes that there will be fewer werewolves. That will also give them more time to deal with any curses, should one PC be infected. Then again, they might not have the time.

There are other considerations, but if you include this curse, you get some interesting strategic choices to make. If you set your 4E game up in a certain way (ie. sandbox), you don't even have to do anything as a DM to make this strategic element come up; it could show from a wandering monster roll.

2. Player-Driven Campaigns

Let's assume that a PC (or more) has contracted the curse. The curse has a number of sample Quests (which provide XP!) that the PCs can take in order to get rid of it.

At Heroic, you need to infect a Good NPC with the curse in order to remove it. That provides the PCs with some interesting choices; who will they infect? Are they going to ask for the NPC's consent or not? What's the fallout from infecting this NPC? Will you end up with a town full of werewolves?

This Quest provides the players with an opportunity to change the direction of the campaign.

3. Tactical Choice

Obviously, if someone has lycanthropy, you'll want to stay away from them in combat. That has a big effect on the choices you make in combat.

I think the reason they made it a "manageable robotic quirk" is that you're taking control away from the player and that's a pretty big deal. The way it's written now, the PC loses total control, but the trigger conditions are clear and it's possible for the players to manipulate them.

If it were something like "When you're hit/Bloodied, make a Nature check; if you fail, you fly into a berserk rage, attacking the nearest creature until it's dead or disabled (roll randomly if there's more than one)", the player of the infected PC has no choices to make.

As it stands, they might do something like using the infected PC to trigger Utility powers that trigger off taking damage - you're out of Inspiring Words, so you get a guy who needs some healing to stand next to the infected PC, and then use Inspiring Reaction when he's hit by the infected PC. Or something like that.

4. Time

If a PC gets pushed to Stage 4, the phase of the moon becomes important. If you're in a dungeon (or the duke's keep, trying to negotiate a treaty) you don't want one of the PCs to turn into an NPC.

 

[LurkAway]

This is what the werewolf's curse does in the game, in my opinion:

LostSoul, that was really, really good, thank you. I am sold that a werewolf curse is an interesting element to add to D&D (if done well). Which leaves me to agree with the majority of your post, and moreso with some interesting ideas that hadn't occured to me. I'm still not sold on this part...

Obviously, if someone has lycanthropy, you'll want to stay away from them in combat. That has a big effect on the choices you make in combat.

As I mentioned upthread, you have werewolf stories of a wolf in sheep's clothing, and then you have viking tales of berserkers in wolf's pelts. I think these are 2 incongruous elements put together Frankenstein-like to create the 4E werewolf curse. I think the very essence of werewolf stories is the fear and mystery of a hidden irrational bloodlust lurking inside men in secret until the full moon.

That said, I'm not completely inflexible, and I can be sold on a new gripping compelling vision of a werewolf like I have not previously imagined. But...

The 4E solution is to codify 'attack anyone in sight' with a single simple rule. But since you've eliminated the nuance and complexity and context of a more freeform roleplaying solution, I think it treats the PC like a videogame character. It devolves into a farce if/when the players treat the 'abstraction' as an absolute automaton behavior that can be observed and predicted, diminishing the full spectrum of supposed berserkness into a manageable robotic quirk.

I think the reason they made it a "manageable robotic quirk" is that you're taking control away from the player and that's a pretty big deal. The way it's written now, the PC loses total control, but the trigger conditions are clear and it's possible for the players to manipulate them.

I agree, except that:
1) as I think would be done in earlier editions, allowing the player to roleplay the berserk reaction is not taking control away at all, in fact, it's empowering the player to roleplay the werewolf role
2) Book of Vile Darkness' solution is not a gripping compelling fiction that gets me to buy into the New Werewolf. On the contrary, the New Werewolf has developed a sort of completely predictable Patellar reflex. For me, that is such a sin to treat a PC like a videogame character, it completely overshadows any good intentions or tactical options

Getting back to the OP, here's how the New Werewolf might be roleplayed 'out of bounds':
1) player says 'screw this rule, can I roleplay out Stage 2 and 3?
2) the DM and the game system assumes it might trust the player to roleplay manually/freeform (at least in an advanced/mature game)
3) use random die rolls to help the player roleplay the berserkness ("I'm sorry I attacked you Bob, but I failed the Will save")

And perhaps this is just or more important...
4) if the other players cannot feel safe with the knowledge of the Stage 3 rule, if there isn't a predictable trigger condition, if it cannot be predicted and thus manipulated at the metagame level, then:
a) the afflicted PC can act 'out of bounds', thus being genuinely unpredictable and scary and thrilling
b) the other players' actions will likely be more in line with what the characters would do under those circumstances

That playstyle might not be for everyone, but that is the 'out of bounds' playstyle that appeals very much to me (and I think what Monte was referring to when appealing to earlier editions of D&D).

EDIT: Just confirming that Stage 2 and 3 refers to the 'knee jerk' reaction, and not Stage 4 which I agree the DM should probably more or less control the PC as an NPC on the full moon behind the scenes.