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

[Beginning of the End]

Allow me to demonstrate: The ranger's player says to you, "We want to cut through the jungle instead of taking the road the long way around."

Walk me through the steps you take to resolve that action using a skill challenge. Starting with how you design the skill challenge and then taking me through each check and its outcome (specifying who's proposing the checks, what they're proposing, and how it resolves).

I will then demonstrate how (a) you did, in fact, set the DCs you're claiming you didn't set and (b) the skill challenge mechanics were completely irrelevant to what you just did.

Pemerton chose not to respond to this, so I've decided to make the demonstration using the "Example of Play" from the skill challenge rules in the Rules Compendium:

DM: You're left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature's corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. "What was that thing?" Pendergraf asks. "And where did it come from?"

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM (marking down a success for the characters): Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

Uldane: Can I look around and see if I can tell which way it came from?

DM: Sure, make a Perception check.

Uldane: Ouch, a 9. Someone remind me to open my eyes the next time I try looking around.

DM (marking the first failure): It takes quite a bit of work to uncover the tracks. It looks like they head to the east side of town.

Valenae: Let's follow the tracks. If we want to protect Pendergraf and the other priests of Pelor, we need to find and destroy whoever summoned that tihng.

DM: The tracks continue for a block or two before they twist and turn around. You realize that you confused the monster's tracks with a horse's, double back, and finally find the trail. It leads to the river quarter, the roughest part of town. The trail ends outside a rundown tavern. Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach.

Kathra: I'd like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM (marking the second failure): The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them stands: "Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they're not wanted." He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, "I'll stick my sword where it's not wanted if you keep up that attitude." I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.

DM (marking the second success): The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.

Dendric: What's the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise, I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here's my check... great, a natural 1. That's a 10, even with Uldane's assistance.

DM (marking the third and final failure): It looks like an old shop that's been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can't quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. "I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let's see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth." Roll for initiative!
​

Now, pay close attention while I use my strange and eldritch arts to demonstrate what this example of play would look like if no skill challenge mechanics were used at all.

DM: You're left with the last misty remnants of the strange creature's corpse and a handful of frightened witnesses. "What was that thing?" Pendergraf asks. "And where did it come from?"

Kathra: Can I make an Arcana check to see if I know anything about it?

DM: Sure.

Kathra: I got a 14.

DM: Okay, you know that the creature was some sort of demon, not native to the world.

Uldane: Can I look around and see if I can tell which way it came from?

DM: Sure, make a Perception check.

Uldane: Ouch, a 9. Someone remind me to open my eyes the next time I try looking around.

DM: It takes quite a bit of work to uncover the tracks. It looks like they head to the east side of town.

Valenae: Let's follow the tracks. If we want to protect Pendergraf and the other priests of Pelor, we need to find and destroy whoever summoned that tihng.

DM: The tracks continue for a block or two before they twist and turn around. You realize that you confused the monster's tracks with a horse's, double back, and finally find the trail. It leads to the river quarter, the roughest part of town. The trail ends outside a rundown tavern. Three thuggish-looking men sit on a bench by the front door. They glare at you as you approach.

Kathra: I'd like to talk to the men to see if any of them saw the demon come by. How about a Diplomacy check - an 11.

DM: The thugs make a show of ignoring you as you approach. Then one of them stands: "Around here, folks know better than to stick their noses where they're not wanted." He puts a hand on the hilt of his dagger.

Shara: I put a hand on my greatsword and growl back at them, "I'll stick my sword where it's not wanted if you keep up that attitude." I got a 21 on my Intimidate check.

DM: The thug turns pale in fear as his friends bolt back into the tavern. He points at the building behind you before darting after them.

Dendric: What's the place look like? Is it a shop, or a private residence?

DM: Someone make a Streetwise check.

Uldane: Using aid another, I try to assist Dendric, since he has the highest Streetwise, I got a 12, so Dendric gets a +2 bonus.

Dendric: Thanks, Uldane. Here's my check... great, a natural 1. That's a 10, even with Uldane's assistance.

DM: It looks like an old shop that's been closed and boarded up. You heard something about this place before, but you can't quite remember it. As you look the place over, the tavern door opens up behind you. A hulk of a half-orc lumbers out, followed by the thugs you talked to earlier. "I heard you thought you could push my crew around. Well, let's see you talk tough through a set of broken teeth." Roll for initiative!
​

 

[Umbran]

So maybe it's not my understanding of them, but that you are making them what you want them to be...

Perhaps better to say that I am looking at them, and seeing what I can make of them. In the end, I'm running a game, right? So, what I can use them for in my game is more important to me than theoretical classification*.

Are Skill Challenges gamist? Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.

But then again, they only lie weakly that way. The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really. Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls. That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules. Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.

If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.





*I have to admit that I find GNS theory's complete lack of empirical support to be a major flaw. If I really want to think about what my players want, I'd rather use something grounded, like WotC's breakdown of players, from the 1999 market research.


**I've always taken GNS to be a description of what players want, not of system elements - a thing is gamist only if it serves a player's gamist agenda. But then the classification is not exclusive - if you can serve more than one agenda, the system element lies on more than one axis.

 

[Imaro]

Perhaps better to say that I am looking at them, and seeing what I can make of them. In the end, I'm running a game, right? So, what I can use them for in my game is more important to me than theoretical classification*.

Are Skill Challenges gamist? Kinda, yeah, I can see they have some length in the G direction, so to speak.

But then again, they only lie weakly that way. The rules for them are not particularly rich - as an outright game, they're kinda boring, really. Also, the GM takes the description of player actions, uses that to determine modifiers himself, and has the players make rolls. That intervention step makes it hard for the players to strategize, because they don't know the rules. Between those two, I don't think SCs really do well in serving gamist agendas**.

If I turn my head a little, and recognize that GM intervention step - the part the GM has personal control of even if he's playing 100% by the book - I realize that this can clearly be made to play the narrativist line too, if I so choose.





*I have to admit that I find GNS theory's complete lack of empirical support to be a major flaw. If I really want to think about what my players want, I'd rather use something grounded, like WotC's breakdown of players, from the 1999 market research.


**I've always taken GNS to be a description of what players want, not of system elements - a thing is gamist only if it serves a player's gamist agenda. But then the classification is not exclusive - if you can serve more than one agenda, the system element lies on more than one axis.

First, again... we are speaking to the mechanics of the system, not what way a DM can twist, tweak and cajole a system to perform. So that is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

Hmm, you know what...after reading why you don't think 4e is designed around a gamist philosophy...I think everyone in this thread could use some definitions of the GNS terminology permeton keeps throwing around but not defining...

From Wikipedia on GNS Theory...

Gamist refers to decisions based on satisfying clear predefined goal conditions in the face of adversity- in other words, on the desire to win. As Ron Edwards mentions in Gamism, Step on Up:

• I might as well get this over with now: the phrase "Role-playing games are not about winning" is the most widespread example of synecdoche in the hobby. Potential Gamist responses, and I think appropriately, include: "Eat me," (-upon winning) "I win," and "C'mon, let's play without these morons."

These decisions are most common in games which pit characters against successively tougher challenges and opponents, and may not spend much time dwelling on why the characters are facing them in the first place. Gamist RPG design tends to place a strong emphasis on parity in character-effectiveness: that is, the idea that all player-characters should be (at least when properly built or optimised over time,) equally strong and capable of dealing with adversity. Combat is frequently heavily emphasised, as is a diversity in options for short-term problem-solving (i.e, long lists of highly specific spells or combat techniques.) Randomisation (i.e, 'Fortune' methods,) exist primarily to provide a gamble and allow players to risk more for higher stakes (for instance, attempting a more effective hit in combat requires a penalty on the dice roll), rather than modelling strict probability.






Narrativism is perhaps best illustrated by a quote from the Forge Glossary on the subject:

• The Impossible Thing Before Breakfast- "The GM is the author of the story and the players direct the actions of the protagonists." Widely repeated across many role-playing texts. Neither clause in the sentence is possible in the presence of the other.

Narrativist play relies heavily on outlining or developing motives for the characters, putting them into situations where those motives come into mutual conflict, and making their decisions in the face of such stress the main driving force behind events. For example, a Samurai character sworn to honour and obey his lord might have that loyalty tested when directed to fight against his own rebellious son, a compassionate doctor might have his sense of charity tested when an enemy soldier comes under his care, or on the lighter end of the spectrum, a schoolgirl having to decide whether to help her best friend cheat on an exam.


Simulationism refers to a style of play where the main agenda is the recreation of, or inspiration by, the observed characteristics of a particular 'genre' or set of source material. Physical reality might count as 'source material' for these purposes, but so might superhero anthologies, or any other literary, cinematic or historical milieu. It's most frequent concerns are internal consistency, analysis or modeling of cause and effect, and informed speculation or even extrapolation to the point of satire. Often characterised by concern for the minutiae of physical interaction and details of setting, Simulationism shares with Narrativism a concern for character backgrounds, personality traits and motives, in an effort to model cause and effect within the intellectual realm as well as the physical.

Now with these to refer to, I'm sorry but SC's do nothing that makes their mechanics even remotely narativist... and I would go so far as to say, 4e is designed with a gamist philosophy, not narrativist. Now you can play any game any way you want but nothing in the 4e mechanics support narrative play. To further explain my point let's take an example permeton used up thread which will illustrate why I feel his examples are erroneous and more a product of his playstyle than any rules, the Warlock's Pact...

You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others. Now you can slap a thick coating of narrativism on top of that class structure and create situations where the Pact becomes a source of conflict for your character... but unless you create houserules... 4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class. Now whether you enjoy that type of mechanic and whether one feels 3.x/PF did a good job instituting it is something else entirely.

 

[BryonD]

Now with these to refer to, I'm sorry but SC's do nothing that makes their mechanics even remotely narativist... and I would go so far as to say, 4e is designed with a gamist philosophy, not narrativist.

Exactly right. At least as far as I am concerned.
But I do think the point of disconnect is the idea of what constitutes "narrativist".

For me (and I'm pretty confident you as well) it means that the narrative is in control. You provide a narrative and the mechanics provide a result and then you move on from there with the mechanics constantly chasing right behind the narrative.

But for some others "narrativist" seems to just mean that the mechanics define the action and so long as a narrative can be created after the fact which fits the dictates of the game, it is all good.

You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others.

You are exactly describing Andy Collins' great quote here.

"In a lot of editions of the game, classes compared to new classes were designed by [first] imagining what could exist in the D&D world, and now I assign the mechanics that make that feel realistic and then I’m done. Well the problem with that is, that you get an interesting simulation of a D&D world but not necessarily a compelling game play experience.
...
since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece. It's got to have a hook (or multiple hooks, preferably) for every class because it’s got to be compelling for people to play it. Not just because it’s got a story – that’s important – but good, compelling mechanics that fit into the team work aspect of gaming"

Complications with a pact and things like that get all hung up in that undesirable "interesting simulation" stuff. And if anything created any inconsistencies in balance might cause people to prefer a different "game piece". And certainly lets never design the Warlock to be a warlock in his own right, but instead he needs to be designed to with the presumption of fitting into a team.

Now you can slap a thick coating of narrativism on top of that class structure and create situations where the Pact becomes a source of conflict for your character...

One of my common descriptions of 4e: role playing "on top" of the system. You can role play ANYTHING in 4E that you can in 3E. But the game comes first and you are left to role play "on top" of it.

but unless you create houserules... 4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class. Now whether you enjoy that type of mechanic and whether one feels 3.x/PF did a good job instituting it is something else entirely.

Again agreed. There is no argument at all that there may be great reasons for loving 4E and hating 3E. But there seems to be a consistent attempt to try to equate them in ways they were not designed to be equivalent. They have very different focuses, strengths, and weaknesses.

I think a big part of the issue is that 3E doesn't really have any safety nets built in. 3E can be played very very badly. It seems to me there are some people who simply never had the fortune of getting into a really good 3E game, so they don't see 4E as having any relative weaknesses and, frankly, don't know what they are missing. If you compare 4E to 3E run poorly by a bad DM, then 4E shines. Even when run by a bad DM, 4E has a strong, resilient system to mitigates the issues. That is why 3E fans are always saying they don't recognize the descriptions that 4E fans insist are so important.

 

[Umbran]

First, again... we are speaking to the mechanics of the system, not what way a DM can twist, tweak and cajole a system to perform. So that is irrelevant to the discussion we are having.

The only reason to have mechanics is so that a GM can use them. They serve no purpose otherwise, so discussion of practical application is never irrelevant.

Hmm, you know what...after reading why you don't think 4e is designed around a gamist philosophy...

Hmm. Somehow, my arguing that one section of the rules has uses beyond gamism has grown into my making statements about the game's overall design philosophy. Interesting. Not at all accurate, but interesting.

 

[Imaro]

The only reason to have mechanics is so that a GM can use them. They serve no purpose otherwise, so discussion of practical application is never irrelevant.

I really wish you would read the last couple pages of this thread so that you have some context for what is going on and what/how it is being discussed. We are discussing whether the mechanics of 4e, and to a lesser extent SC's mechanically actively promote narrativist play better than previous editions... We've already established much earlier in this discussion that a DM can use mechanics however he wants, and have now moved on to whether the mechanics in and of themselves promote narrativist play ... so yeah, at this point it is irrelevant to where the conversation has led.

Hmm. Somehow, my arguing that one section of the rules has uses beyond gamism has grown into my making statements about the game's overall design philosophy. Interesting. Not at all accurate, but interesting.

Again, we have already established a good DM can use any number of mechanics through modification, interpretation, houserules, etc. to accomodate a playstyle that they weren't necessarily created for. That is not what we are discussing.

As for your SC... you still haven't addressed in what way the mechanics support/promote narrativist play... all you did was exspress the opinion they could be used to run a narrativist style game...which no one is disagreeing with.

The contention arose because it was claimed that ths 4e rules are objectively better for running a narrativist game than the editions before it. I disagreed that it was "objectively better". Now please, because I asked this upthread... could you clarify exactly what your stance is, because right now it doesn't seem like you are participating in the same conversation as the rest of us.

 

[LostSoul]

LostSoul, the problem with your assertion that you don't have to worry about making poor decisions... does not in any way guarantee thematic actions, and could just as easily lead to players of a different mindset more easily gaming the system mechanics and assumptions and disregarding thematic decisions alltogether... again this seems like a case of choosing to use mechanics in a particular way but not necessarily that those mechanics are designed to lead you or even give you incentive to play in a narrative style.

I agree. PC-based DCs can help you achieve thematic play but on its own it's not really going to do much. You need to do more.

I think Warlocks are a good example:

However you came to your arcane knowledge, you need not accept the poor reputation warlocks sometimes endure. You could be a libram-toting scholar captivated by ominous lore, a foot-loose wanderer searching for elusive ultimate truths, a devil-touched hunter using infernal spells to eliminate evil, or even a black-clad mercenary who uses sinister trappings to discourage prying strangers and unwanted attention. On the other hand, you could be a true diabolist using your gifts to tyrannize the weak—some warlocks unfortunately are exactly that.​

What that says to me is that you can ignore your pact and any in-game consequences that might have been brought up. The nasty things you do aren't part of the "economy" of the game and can easily be ignored - even if you want to focus on them.

I always thought Warlocks were cool but this grated at me; in my hack, I specify a Warlock's "Pact Obligation" - what the PC needs to do in order to refresh "Daily" spells and level up. It's usually pretty horrendous. That brings the pact into the game's economy and makes it an important part of play.

Of course, that by itself doesn't guarantee thematic play either! My hack is aimed at "Step on Up" play. While I could use this "Pact Obligation" to get more thematic play, I'd change other aspects of the game in order to deliver that kind of fun.

 

[pemerton]

I think everyone in this thread could use some definitions of the GNS terminology permeton keeps throwing around but not defining...

For me (and I'm pretty confident you as well) it means that the narrative is in control.

Andy Collins' great quote here.

<snip parts of quote>

since we’re playing a game, why is this game piece different than another game piece and why do I want to play it instead another game piece.

I made it pretty clear upthread that I'm using Forge terminology.

What Collins talks about isn't about gamism in this sense. Being self-conscious about game elements as game elements is, probably, at odds with some sorts of simulationism (= exploration-based play). It isn't necessarily connected, though, to "step on up" play (= gamism, in the Forge sense).

By narrativism, I mean a game in which the purpose of play is for the players and GM together to engage with and address thematic (moral, aesthetic) ideas in the course o play, and to express there own conclusions on these matters. If the gameworld or the mechanics already answer these questions (eg via alignment rules, dark side point rules, rules that tell us when a PC becomes evil and also tell us that evil PCs become NPCs, etc) then it doesn't serve this purpose so well.

"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..."

<snip>

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

I think it's pretty apparent that 4e has two modes of action resolution - tactical/combat, and skill challenges. The text about movement rates, including movement rates for swimming and climbing, strikes me as being for the first. I'd hardly say that the various published examples of skill challenges that use Athletics skill in a way divorced from these tactical issues of movement rate are ignoring the rules. They're just taking place in the non-tactical mode. (As I said upthread - and it's something I've said many times before - the lack of guidance on integrating the two modes is the biggest weakness in 4e's action resolution rules.)

As for using Arcana to "minionise" an NPC, this doesn't strike me as ignoring the rules any more than the recent module (I think in Monster Vault) that allows use of a social skill to inflict damage on an NPC. After all, 4e does have minions. And with a few exceptions (perhaps decrepit skeletons really are very decrepit) minion is a metagame status (this is obviously true for goblin cutters, human rabble and thugs, etc) - much like hit points. So imposing minion status via a skill check is pretty analogous to imposing hit point loss via a social skill check.

In my mind, this is the sort of thing that page 42 is for.

You see because 4e is gamist and the Warlock class has to be balanced with every other class... the warlock can't ever really face any conflict (mechanically) over his pact... He can't ever loose his pact, doesn't face any hard choices about his pact and it really is just an ability used to balance the class against others.

<snip>

4e in no way supports this mechanically. In fact I would say the 3.x/PF Paladin is a much better example of mechanics that direct narrative play... the conflict is built into the mechanics of the class.

I'm not a big fan of the classic D&D paladin, for two reasons. First, because it's dependent on GM-arbitrated alignment descriptions, it is the GM's thematic conception that dominates over the player's. Second, the mechanics already answer the question "Will doing XYZ (various morally dubious actions) lead ultimately to corruption".

The 4e warlock doesn't get mechanically tested, that is true. For me that is a virtue, because it leaves the field of interpretation and engagement open to the players and GM. Every time an infernal warlock uses a power, for example, s/he is drawing on the power of the Nine Hells. I think it's pretty obvious how a GM might use this to introduce thematic conflict into a game, and oblige the player of that PC to engage with that theme in some way as part of driving the game forward. (At present, I'm in a similar point in my game with a Chaos Sorcerer about to become a Demonskin Adept. And he's just retrained Diplomacy to Intimidate in order to support a rattling power. So he's providing his own answer to the question - Does chaos lead to corruption?).

It seems to me there are some people who simply never had the fortune of getting into a really good 3E game, so they don't see 4E as having any relative weaknesses and, frankly, don't know what they are missing.

Well, I could equally say that there are some people who seem simply never to have had the good fortune of getting into a really good narrativist game, where play is driven by the thematic concerns the players bring to the table, rather than by the desire to explore a pre-given fantasy world.

But I wouldn't know whether or not that's true, or whether the people to whom I'm imputing this (in)experience just have different tastes.

I've always agreed with those who say 4e differs from 3E. I've frequently asserted that it doesn't do particularly well at supporting play where the main aim is exploration of a fantasy world that is, in some metaphorical sense, given prior to play. And I've always taken it for granted that this is because it contains a range of non-simulationist mechanics that many fans of 3E dislike: minions; Intimidate skill causing hp loss; healing surges as a non-simulationist method for handling recovery of hp both in and out of combat; skill challenges as an action resolution mechanic that makes the introduction of complications into a situation something divorced from considerations simply of scene extrapolation and ingame causal logic; classes like paladins and warlocks divorced from an alignment mechanic; etc. Certainly, these are the mechanics frequently criticised by those who say they don't like 4e because of its non-simulationist approach.

So for me, the strangest thing about this thread is being told by many of those critics that, in fact, 3E handles non-simulationist play just as well as 4e, and that it either also possesses these mechanics, or can repiclates them just as well, and that their express existence in 4e makes no difference to the sort of roleplaying that 4e can support.

 

[pemerton]

What that says to me is that you can ignore your pact and any in-game consequences that might have been brought up. The nasty things you do aren't part of the "economy" of the game and can easily be ignored

Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?

 

[Nagol]

Only if the GM lets you. And if you, as a player, make it clear that this is why you're playing a warlock, why would the GM let you? Wouldn't the GM introduce situations into the game that make this pact stuff important?

Not if you chose that game piece for its effect in the game world (power choice and role).

In that case, you'd wonder why the DM was picking on you and making you work for your powers and not the player playing a fighter and why the player with the Cleric isn't being pressured into kowtowing to a particular set of proscribed dogma.

And even if the player wants the pact and the flavour to be more centre stage, the DM has to want to bother focusing on a very personal part of character that with focus, could easily render that character impotent or dead. Sometimes, the Dm doesn't not want that type of campaign.