Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[BryonD]

Oh, no, I read the entire post. I would just like to see why you think that what you are doing is actually using the mechanics of the game you claim to be playing.

Then you just did not understand, because I clearly explained it. And how you can read the entire post and reference "BryonD's Diceless d20" is boggling.

You are saying that my characterization of pacing in the 3.5 ruleset is flat out wrong.

I am saying that:

In other words, the DM has zero control over the pacing here. The dice determine pacing. How long or short this scenario is is out of the hands of a (non-fudging) DM.

is 100% wrong.

To show that I'm wrong, you then claim to not use any of the 3e ruleset but instead head off into your own diceless system that bears no actual resemblance to what the books say.

I don't know how to respond to this. It doesn't even remotely resemble what I actually said.

So, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that a wilderness trek will require a number of dice rolls to determine whether or not the party gets lost (see the Survival skill for DC's and effects) and a number of random encounter rolls (see the DMG for applicable tables and rules)?

Additionally, how am I mischaracterizing 3e by saying that the results of those die rolls will dictate to a large degree the pacing of the scenario?

You are accurately characterizing a terrible and thoughtles implementation of the 3E rules. I would not want to play with a DM who was described by this using any system whatsoever.

But you clearly don't grasp the explanation I offered. Seriously, I'm still having trouble believing you actually read it.

But if you did and you still mean what you are saying in your replies, then cool. You are not going to experience or enjoy 3E as I do. No one who read that and came away thinking "diceless D20" ever will.

 

[Umbran]

I don't particularly like the pacing of 4e SC's which are too abstract, too railroaded and too based on group vs. individual protagonist's decisions... why would I replicate them exactly, especially when that's not what Permeton asked me to do.

But, you did replicate them. Each of those little non-combat scenes can be interpreted as a SC behind the screen. The players describe what they do, and roll dice. You keep track of results, and inform them of status. The only thing the SC adds is a notion of when you should call it a success or a failure - which you also probably have in mind when you design the scenes in 3e-style anyway. The difference between these things is not large.

SC's are presented in the rules in an abstract way - but then, so is combat. Your implementation of them in play does not have to be abstract. It can be very concrete, interactive, and presented like any other scene. And they by no means have to be railroading - a strength of SCs is that any way each player can think of to apply a skill to the issue can be included, rather than having very specific actions they must take for the players to succeed.

I will grant you, the way the SCs are described in the core rules kinda stinks, so that maybe this is not immediately obvious upon reading. But the issues you raise don't seem to me to inherent to the system, but to how the GM approaches the system's use at the table. Sure, individual encounters can be poorly designed and implemented - but that's as true for combat, and for any edition.

So are you saying it is impossible to abstract to the level of a single roll called on by the DM to be taken by the person with the highest score in 3e?

I don't see how that at all follows from what I said. Given Rule 0, it is possible to do whatever the heck you want.

I don't think it's against the rules and it will give you similar results to 4e's SC's if that's what you want out of the game. Also why do you insist on an encounter being tied to a certain amount of time... it's not. A SC in 4e covers numerous encounters... how much time each takes to resolve is a totally different matter.

I tie and encounter, or scene, to an amount of time because I think the game structures were built to directly support dramatic structures, which do generally take time. The SC isn't a shorthand for getting through things quick and dirty - it is simply a structure GMs can use to help set difficulty and what happens on their own side of the screen.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Seriously, I'm still having trouble believing you actually read it.

Take comfort; you are not alone.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But, you did replicate them.

Only in some Bizarro Universe, where the DCs Imaro chooses must be based off character level, and there must be X successes before Y failures.

 

[Imaro]

But, you did replicate them. Each of those little non-combat scenes can be interpreted as a SC behind the screen. The players describe what they do, and roll dice. You keep track of results, and inform them of status. The only thing the SC adds is a notion of when you should call it a success or a failure - which you also probably have in mind when you design the scenes in 3e-style anyway. The difference between these things is not large.

As RC cites... the SC DC's given aren't even based on the actual DC's given for the skills in 4e... they are based on PC level (though the funny thing is that I've seen other 4e fans argue that DC's are based on the challenge level of the obstacle) the determination is pre-set, and again X successes on the first roll means the entire SC was a successes and really everyone could just choose not to act for the rest of it and still come out winners, since that is one of the choices in a SC by RAW. However, there is no overarching success or failure level in my set up... success, failures and the end result are all determined by what PC's choose to do and has it's pacing set by the collaborative actions of the PC's and DM... not by an arbitrarily (gamist) limit that is correctly designed for their level.

SC's are presented in the rules in an abstract way - but then, so is combat. Your implementation of them in play does not have to be abstract. It can be very concrete, interactive, and presented like any other scene. And they by no means have to be railroading - a strength of SCs is that any way each player can think of to apply a skill to the issue can be included, rather than having very specific actions they must take for the players to succeed.

Now you are talking about the abstraction level of fluff... which has not been what we've been discussing... we have been discussing mechanics and they have levels of abstraction.

I will grant you, the way the SCs are described in the core rules kinda stinks, so that maybe this is not immediately obvious upon reading. But the issues you raise don't seem to me to inherent to the system, but to how the GM approaches the system's use at the table. Sure, individual encounters can be poorly designed and implemented - but that's as true for combat, and for any edition.

Riiight, I get it... I just don't "get" SC's... yet I haven't seen you explain how these mechanics are not a gamist structure as opposed to narrative.

So maybe it's not my understanding of them, but that you are making them what you want them to be... because the advantages you and permeton are promoting for 4e SC's don't seem to me inherent to the system, but to how you all as GM's approach the system's use at the table. Sure the mechanics can seem great when you intepret and change them to fit your vision... but that's for any edition.

I don't see how that at all follows from what I said. Given Rule 0, it is possible to do whatever the heck you want.

Again we are speaking about mechanics of the games. I'm not even clear what you are arguing Umbran, you kinda jumped into the middle of a discussion between me and permeton without clarifying what exactly your stand is... and you don't seem to be addressing the issues that we are all discussing, so could you please clarify what exactly your stance is.

I tie and encounter, or scene, to an amount of time because I think the game structures were built to directly support dramatic structures, which do generally take time. The SC isn't a shorthand for getting through things quick and dirty - it is simply a structure GMs can use to help set difficulty and what happens on their own side of the screen.

But you are tying an encounter to your own pre-conceived notions of how much time it takes... there is not set amount of time for an "encounter" in D&D. And here I see the problem... you see permeton has argued that he doesn't want to deal with minutae and bogging down you are forced to use in 3.x/PF and thus feels 4e's SC's allow a DM to do things you can't in 3.x?PF... I argued that 3.X/PF's rules could accomodate this down and dirty way of playing out encounters as well... you seem to be either going back and forth on your stance or not really understanding what we are discussing.

 

[Fifth Element]

As RC cites... the SC DC's given aren't even based on the actual DC's given for the skills in 4e... they are based on PC level

This is due to the assumption that PCs will generally be facing level-appropriate challenges. Using lower-level skill challenges is generally less interesting because they will not really be skill challenges, but skill exercises.

 

[pemerton]

BUT... all of this can be defined in 3e by player choice just as easily as a player in 4e... this is where I keep missing your overall point. You seem to be saying "heroic protagonism" and rich "thematic choices" boils down to fluff and choices... well then I really don't see 4e as any better at it than 3.x/PF, just different

Of course it can be done in 3E. That's why I said way upthread that I'm sure I could run 3E in a vanilla narrativist style.

My point is that 4e does it better, because the dynamic pacing of 4e combat creates a situation where the stakes are high and these choices must be made. To make it a bit more concrete: In a scry-teleport-ambush scenario, my choice to be a polearm master or an archer doesn't really make any difference other than colour. If the dynamic of combat is hold off the monsters while the wizard casts save-or-suck, choices about sacrifice, who to heal and so on are less likely to come into play.

4e, by changing the dynamics of combat from games like 3E and Rolemaster, creates more space where these sorts of choices have to be made, and start to matter as more than just colour.

I just don't "get" SC's

Think of them as HeroQuest 2nd ed extended contests, except (i) instead of 5 points, its somewhere between 4 and 12 points required, and (ii) instead of the opposing force getting to make rolls and accumulate points, the opposing force wins if it gets 3 points, where it gets points by the PCs failing. (So it's a little bit like extended-challenge-meets-players-roll-all-the-dice.) And players would narrate their attempts, and the GM the consequences of those attempts, in a similar sort of way.

as I look through the 4e PHB and DMG... I've noticed that many of 4e's skills have set DC's for particular actions just like 3.x/PF. Does this mean that using the skill rules vs. SC rules of 4e hinders "heroic protagonism"?

Yes. The original rules are mildly incoherent in this respect. Essentials mostly resolves this in favour of level-appropriateness.

I'm also curious how you deal with this dichotomy.

<snip>

I mean I understand this discrepancy from a gamist stand point... having general by level DC's makes the game more fun and easier to run when you don't want to be concerned with the detail of simulating the world... What I don't understand is how these seperate resolution systems help to promote narrative play vs. gamist.

The relevance to narrativism is as I've explained - it's the analogue, in 4e, of HQ's pass-fail cycle.

As to the discrepancy - it comes up mostly in the contrast between tactical/combat resolution, and skill challenge resolution. And as I said upfront, this interface is the weakest part of 4e action resolution. The problem isn't that DCs change - I can narrate around that, just as in HQ the GM might have to explain why the same chasm has a different DC (if the pass/fail cycle has moved). It's more about working out how to integrate the two different ways of determining successes/consequences. I've given a few examples upthread of how I've handled this in my game.

 

[BryonD]

could run 3E in a vanilla narrativist style.

...

My point is that 4e does it better,

...

In a scry-teleport-ambush scenario

...

my choice to be a polearm master or an archer doesn't really make any difference other than colour.

...

If the dynamic of combat is hold off the monsters while the wizard casts save-or-suck, choices about sacrifice, who to heal and so on are less likely to come into play.

...

start to matter as more than just colour.

For someone who has gotten highly defensive about critical comments thrown at 4E, I find it really interesting how misguided your assessment of 3E falls.

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is due to the assumption that PCs will generally be facing level-appropriate challenges. Using lower-level skill challenges is generally less interesting because they will not really be skill challenges, but skill exercises.

Right.

And 3e was explicitly designed with the idea that DMs might not be running the game that way. (i.e., the section on Status Quo encounters.)

 

[Beginning of the End]

I resolved this via a simple arcana check, forming the view that making him wade through the 50-odd hit points the NPC was statted as having for an actual combat context would add nothing at all to the game.

Incidentally, I don't know how 3E would handle this - with it's more simulationist treatment of hit points what I've described would be closer to cheating,

I propose a new drinking game:

- Every time somebody says "4th Edition's rules are great for supporting this style of play. The first thing you need to do is ignore the rules and then..." Take a shot.

- Every time somebody says, "So what you do in 4th Edition is ignore the rules. But I have NO IDEA how you would ignore the exact same rules in 3rd Edition." Take two shots.

Don't read more than a couple of pages at a time, though. Otherwise you might die from alcohol poisoning.

So can I set the DC of the swim check without knowing how deep and/or wide and/or fast flowing the river is?

The d20 SRD says this about swimming:

Make a Swim check once per round while you are in the water. Success means you may swim at up to one-half your speed (as a full-round action) or at one-quarter your speed (as a move action). If you fail by 4 or less, you make no progress through the water. If you fail by 5 or more, you go underwater.​

That implies to me that the players have to make at least as many swim checks as twice the ratio of the river width to their movement rates. The number required is more if some of those checks fail. I don't see how this is not the mechanics determining the pacing in a pretty simulationist fashion.

The D&D4 Player's Handbook says this about swimming:

Make an Athletics check to swim or tread water. Part of a move action. Success: You swim at one-half speed, or you stay afloat and tread water. Fail by 4 or Less: Stay where you are and lose the rest of your move action. Fail by 5 or More: Sink 1 square and risk suffocation by drowning.
​

You'll notice that this rule is virtually the same rule.

Take two shots.

But, your example here of the river is a very poor example of a skill challenge. Additionally, why is the DM telling the players how to cross the river? It's up to the players to tell the DM how they attempt to cross the river and the DM's job to adjudicate from there.

Rules Compendium, pg. 158: "As the challenge proceeds, the DM might prompt the players to make checks, let them choose to make checks, or both."

Everybody take a shot.

as I look through the 4e PHB and DMG... I've noticed that many of 4e's skills have set DC's for particular actions just like 3.x/PF. Does this mean that using the skill rules vs. SC rules of 4e hinders "heroic protagonism"?

Yes. The original rules are mildly incoherent in this respect. Essentials mostly resolves this in favour of level-appropriateness.

In case anyone's wondering: Every single example Imaro posted, AFAICT, remains unchanged in the Essentials' Rules Compendium. The Swim rules also remain unchanged.

New rule:

- Somebody gets a 4th Edition rule completely wrong while claiming that the thing they're completely wrong about is intrinsic to 4th Edition supporting narrativist play. Take a shot.