Except that there is the (undeveloped) notion of a Destiny Quest. And there are the ED endgames. The Questing Knight sidebar about GM and player working out a quest. And so much fiction. So I get a different impression from you.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Legends and Lore - The Temperature of the Rules
- Thread starter Mark CMG
- Start date
I agree about the Destiny Quest, at least partly - it seems clear that something is supposed to happen in-game at some point that is destiny-quest related. But as a goodbye to the PC and wrap-up to the campaign, so it's a bit late!
Balesir
Adventurer
It's a bit of a sideline, but I'll bite, just once:
Referees in sport don't get to decide what the rules are - at most, they get to decide how the rules are applied in this specific case. Generally, all they decide is matters of fact. Take the offside rule in football (soccer) for example; the referee and the linesmen don't confer along the lines of "well, the rule is two players, but he was pretty advanced so maybe we should say three in this case...". They just decide "were there too few opposition players between the potential offender and the goal line at the instant the ball was played?" Matters of fact; maybe also matters of interpretation in some cases, but not matters of "what the rules are". Not "that was too easy - I think he should have to touch the ball to the ground on both sides of the posts to get a touchdown in this instance"...
It's a big difference.
If this is actually happening it's a good indication that the players don't want to play exploratively/simulationistly/immersively - they want gamism. If they feel they are stepping up to "beat the monsters", they have left Sim territory behind.
The same issue is noted for PTA; it's a system designed to play with a Narrativist agenda, and if players play to "win" it breaks pretty much immediately. In much the same way, actually, as D&D breaks if you try to play with a Simulationist agenda and simultaneously use the Rules exactly as Written.
This is a concern, yes - and it's why I tried to indicate that the details of the mechanism might have to be very different from those used in PTA. The crux of the issue though, is this:
Sim/immersive play is about "living" as your character in a strange and novel world. It's about seeing the world through their eyes - experiencing situations and dilemmas in their shoes. The biggest enemy of such play is, in my experience, what is sometimes labelled "assumption clash". This is when the situation in the game is understood differently by different people - generally (because of the "traditional" way of playing) by a player and the GM. By "situation", here, I mean not just the physical locations of the protagonists and so on, but the way the world works; the likely outcomes of a situation based on how the components of this alien world interact with one another. This is based on the "world models" - both of the real world and of the unique features of the game world - carried in the minds of the players, including the GM.
What this means for Sim/immersionist play is that there is a potential conflict, that the rules need to be ready to resolve, between the player(s) with authority over the setting and resolution and those without.
The picture I see, then, is (following an excellent post about legal analogies somewhere around that I read recently) a "game system" that consists of a body of "precedent" about what the game world is like. Some of this will have been defined by the game originator at the campaign start - either from a publication or from their own invention, some will be introduced by the other players as they define their characters and their contacts and background, and some will be formed by judgements and interpretations during play. What I am saying, is that it will generally be better if all of the players have a say in these "precedent-forming" judgements that arise as play progresses.
This is important for two reasons: (1) it maintains player buy-in to the world setting as it develops, making sure that it will not challenge their "suspension of disbelief", and (2) it makes sure that the players are aware, at the point of decision, what these judgements are and so are not blindsided later when they assume something different.
The answer to the "break out of immersion to vote" issue, then, is that, yes, this may happen from time-to-time, but it will be in the interest of forming a mutually acceptable body of "common lore" (you see what I did there?
) that will usually be what is used to form/guide judgements that can be made without the need for a vote. In other words, once the "world rules" are formed, they can just be used without any "fiat" at all - the voting only happens to clarify the "page 42" or maybe "Rule 0" moments.Hopefully, the clarification of what I had in mind addresses your concerns, here? I'm saying the "rotate or educate the DM" mechanism should be a natural expression of how the rules work, not a last-ditch extremity used only after everyone has become frustrated.
I'm getting confused. I agree the referee (DM) generally shouldn't create rules out of thin air ("Oh here comes a dinosaur, he shoots you with lasers, you die"). But referees do make calls for actions that fall into a grey area. The audience and athletes (possibly hindered by their respective biases) may or may not agree with the call. That scenario doesn't meant the rules are broken or the sport should be disbanded. It means that the referee should be fair and consistent ('advanced DMs') and the players should be mature ('please stop screaming at the referee').
If that's happening, they should be playing "Legends" and not "Lore"
Yes, thank you, your clarification does help. Personally, I don't recall experience the problems of assumption clash like others have. Myself, I would prefer to have the rules inform a simple baseline for what the fictional world is like, especially for the contentious issues like magic, and then trust the DM to handle the grey areas (with guidance from the rules as per the OP) and just to buy into the DM's vision. In our ivory tower, I'd be happy to see if your implement could work for those people who have been affected by that problem and don't want to bail out to the Legends edition.
Crazy Jerome
First Post
I think the most valuable observation that came out of the Forge movement was that if you want to talk about "story" for more than a few minutes, coherently among several people, you must first define what everyone means by it. Because odds say they will have different definitions, and these differences will lead to fights.
That caveat up front, I'd say that BW is a traditional game, built in part as a reaction to the Forge movement, but incorporating a few key insights from it towards its traditional aims. It started very "indie" but is becoming less so over time. BW isn't Forge-Narrative. It sure isn't "addressing premise", and only is "Story Now!" if you take the plain English meaning of the term versus its more technical one. (And then, see the previous paragraph.) No, it is a game where the story emerges in play, but happens to use mechanics to push that emergence hard. (This is why BW play largely "fails" if the GM and players do not so push.) Or to put it another way, Luke Crane and company have a very particular idea of what "story" is in a game, and have been clear-headed about how to make the game produce that thing.
And in any case, in the later, more sane Forge writings on creative agenda, games and players don't have these labels, but particular groups at particular times trying to do particular things do--with some games helping more than others. Which I know you know.
That's just by long-winded explanation of why I find "indie" not a very useful term, and doubly so if conflated with other terms more directed at design or playstyle.
Vyvyan Basterd
Adventurer
I don't believe the intent was to ignore them, I just think they've been under-utilized. A Dungeon Magazine Forgotten Realms adventure from August that I adapted to my campaign built character themes into the story, giving examples of how the character's theme could change what occurs.
Edit: Even the WotC published run of original modules made reference to (Paragon Paths and)* Epic Destinies when discussing the hooks for the adventures.
*I'm not 100% sure on this, but the ED were definitely covered.
Balesir
Adventurer
There are grey areas, yes - but there are with any system. They should be fringe areas, though.
In sport, slanging matches can develop over simple identification of facts - especially where video judges are not used! [personal bias] And grossly overpaying teenagers virtually guarantees immature reactions... [/personal bias]
Exactly!If that's happening, they should be playing "Legends" and not "Lore"
Interpretation and extrapolation might still be a contentious area, but a well-matched group should be able to cope. The danger, I guess, is when the GM is making extrapolations based on elements of their real-world-model that the players don't share. Maturity might be required to deal calmly with that circumstance. But then, that may well happen with any system.
Another important thing about "Legend" edition and "Lore" edition is that there shouldn't be any law that says you only play one. If "Lore" turned out well, I would personally lap it up for those sessions when I wanted to get my immersive on.
I'm imagining tons of grey areas in a streamlined non-complicated game. Say the rule is: 'It takes 1 move action to open an average door in average combat.' How about heavy stone doors? Stuck doors? Rusted doors? A door knob covered in oil? If you use a crowbar? A high Str PC vs a low Str PC? Out of combat? Unless you complicate the game with tons of rules, these grey areas will appear over and over. And I don't want a vote on every single occurence -- as a player, I didn't sign up to be on the Rules Committee -- that's the DM's job and I'd like to trust or tolerate his/her refereering.
I might be missing something, but on average, I don't see that being an inherent problem in a gamist system. In a "Legends" system, the abstraction of the rule is more real to the player than what the rule was originally intended to model (if anything). You can argue about whether the rule is balanced or whatnot, but you don't argue if the rule should be applied or not based on fictional positioning. So you're not prone to arguments about a heavy stone door is 3 times heavier than an average wooden door and therefore takes the equivalent of 3 move actions to open. I think it also takes a certain amount of maturity (or at least indifference) to realize: in the bigger picture, it doesn't really matter, this is a game.
Absolutely! Why would there be a law otherwise? WoTC would love to have you buy both
Balesir
Adventurer
Hey, now you're making me have to really think about my responses - that can't be a good thing!
As with any "common law" system, the start will have a lot of "pause moments". But it shouldn't last long. the first time you get a non-standard door, a pause is required. Maybe the next, or just the next really different case. Let's say you jointly agree that stuck doors need a Str check; DC from 5 for lightly jammed to 20 for "wood warped and expanded into the frame". Next stuck door, no pause should be needed - the GM has a pretty good set of precedent/ruling there to interpolate on. A few disparate types of "stuck" (rusted, wedged, etc.) later there should be enough "case law" to cover most doors that might be encountered without much dissent.
Another important angle, here, is the "sphere" of the decision. These are all setting elements; for an immersive game (as well as a gamist one) the GM gets authority over those anyway. they could choose a "barred with solid oaken beams on the far side door" if they chose to, so it's really not the same as a "house cats always do 2d10 damage with each claw that hits in this world" ruling.
Gamist supporting rules have less of an issue in this respect, yes, but there can still be issues, especially with interpretation. Early (pre-errata) 4E rules for Channel Divinity and Commander's Strike had just this sort of issue. It's not necessarily the fictional positioning that interferes (though the "not being able to push creatures down stairs" debate certainly went there!) but different views about what written words mean, or at least imply.
Sure - that (ought to) mean(s) that the criteria for judgement and rules of applicability of precedents are somewhat more relaxed!
Crazy Jerome
First Post
One thing that helps in this kind of play is if the game includes a discussion of the probabilities and how those generally translate to fictional elements, and what that means. You necessarily need somewhat of a presumed playstyle to do this, because you want to reduce the probabilities down to a few rules of thumb (that work most of the time, but not all) without everyone having to understand every nuance of the math.
For example, in Burning Wheel, the baseline assumption on odds is that a mundane creature that is competent at a skill will have 4 dice (before any situational or other adjustments in the fiction), will get an average of 2 successes out of those dice, and thus has about a 50/50 shot at an "obstacle 2" (OB2) roll. That's somewhat on the gritty end, but only rolling when it really matters means that the character can bring resources to bear if he really wants it. So when a new BW GM goes to set an obstacle for a task, and the current examples don't exactly cut it, you can make those kind of determinations easily. A lot of stuff worth doing that is mundane is OB2, and if it is slightly easier or harder than that, it is OB1 or OB3 by definition. (Other BW books go into even more detail about how to apply this in more extreme circumstances.)
Now, I think those rules of thumb are a bit harder in a d20+mod vs DC system, because of the range of the die, and it being linear instead of a bell curve. That is, the basics of the math on probability are easier to understand, but the rules of thumb are a bit harder to state. And of course there is a wider range of playstyles expected than BW, too. So you end up needing different rules of thumb for different expectations. For one example (rough draft, probably has serious flaws in it):
More mythic than gritty, heroic type of actions with bias towards success, adventurers are generally compentent at being adventurers. Baseline is that success occurs roughly 2/3 of the time, all else being equal. Bad situations can pull this down temporarily, but concentrated use of character resources can push it up temporarily. A starting, competent creature is assumed to have a +6 to +8 in a skill. Therefore, the DC for mundane but important tasks is around 15. (Need an 8+ roll to hit 65% success. That roll, +7 on average from skill, hits the DC.)
Where it gets tricky in 3E/4E is deviating from those odds. It is so tempting to adjust the DC by increments of 5 up and down, but that doesn't leave much room for expectations. Really, those are pushing the limits, with 65% as your baseline assumption. 40% down to 90% up is practically sufficient range by itself (especially if you want to leave room for grittier variants with a different base line--such as 50% base, 25% to 75% adjustment). Developing such a game from scratch, I'd go with standard adjustment of 3 to the base, allow two such adjustments on each side of the baseline, and thus have a range of 35% most difficult to 95% most easy (remembering this is mythic side, with grit shifting the whole range down by about 15% to 20%).
So now can write guidelines as a competent character giving a task where results under pressure matters:
DC 9 - slim possiblity of failure, but otherwise routine
DC 12 - easier than normal
DC 15 - normal problem, will success more than fail
DC 18 - harder than normal, could go either way
DC 21 - can pull it off, but risky
These are the kinds of tasks that competent creatures often encounter, reduced down to five possible variations of difficulty. Any difficulty much below DC 9 is automatic success for any but an incompetent creature, and any difficulty above DC 21 is increasingly unreasonable for anyone not distinctly superior to starting competence.
Then, of course, in D&D you have to scale all of that for character advancement. Though note that there is no inherent reason why the skills have to advance every level, except that the wider range of DCs in 3E/4E come built in with that assumption. (+1 to one skil per level, with a "forced spreading" system is one way out of many.) With the above system, and judicious and slight scaling, you can top out the very worst typical DCs (i.e. high level but standard things) around DC 30. Leave odds worse than that to circumstances, even if predetermined in the situation. You end up with:
DC 24 - bad
DC 27 - really bad
DC 30 - you want me to do what!
If sneaking up on the dragon is a baseline of DC 24, that's bad enough. And then any situational or circumstance that makes it worse piles on top. The d20 remains relevant, the mods remain relevant, and I've got at most 8 variations on difficulty to remember, and the difficulties scale by 3 every time. (How bad is climbing this mountain? It's got snow and some tough overhangs, but nothing really nasty. Call it 2 up from the baseline, thus DC 21.)
