Non-combat encounter playstyle preferences

[pemerton]

The thread "Why must numbers go up" has drifted in a few different directions.

One of them is about "traditional" versus "modern" approaches to resolving non-combat encounters.

In the traditional approach, the GM sets a game-mechanical difficulty that reflects the imagined reality of the ingame situation. The players then try to succeed at their die roll, or perhaps to change the ingame situation to reduce the difficulty before rolling. It is the GM's job to work out how much benefit the players get from those sorts of efforts (eg what is the bonus to a Diplomacy roll if the players offer the NPC a bribe). Once the dice are rolled, it also the GM's job to specify what exactly is the ingame meaning of game-mechanical success or failure (eg does the NPC agree to become your lifelong servant, or simply offer you a small grunt of encouragement?)

In the modern approach, the game-mechanical difficulty is determined by the game's encounter-building guidelines - whether the level of a skill challenge, in 4e, or the dictates of the pass/fail cycle, in a game like HeroQuest 2nd ed. The GM then describes the gameworld in such a way as to make that difficulty level make sense (eg the difficulty of the Acrobatics check for level 30 characters is 35 - it's Astral Teflon Slime!). The players engage the challenge by making skill checks, and depending on how those skill checks pan out as the challenge unfolds the GM describes the ingame situation as evolving in the appropriate way, and the players respond to that in their subsequent skill checks.

Some people think that the modern approach undermines creativity and imagination, and instead turns the game into an exercise in dice rolling. My own experience is the opposite - namely, that it provides a game mechanical platform for the GM and players alike to exercise imagination and creativity both in framing the situation, and then playing out its resolution.

I'm wondering what experiences others have had in actual play, whether of 4e skill challenges, or in other "modern" games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, etc. Has anyone actually encountered the "exercise in dice rolling" phenomenon, or is it a merely theoretical objection?

 

[steenan]

I like both approaches, it just depends on the rest of the game. If it does not fit with the system, none of these is acceptable.

In a simulationist game, I expect the world to have a definite shape. It may be changed by PC's actions, but is not defined by the very fact of interaction. In such game I expect the system to represent what really is there, who the characters speak with etc. No matter if we are talking about combat or not, the difficulties and possibilities are determined by the fictional content that GM put there. Imagined space rules the system. It is possible to be faced with something trivially easy or impossibly hard, just because it is this way in the game world. But you also aren't expected to overcome everything you encounter, because it is you who sets the goals and chooses the means.

In a game with a strong narrative structure (not necessarily "narrativist" in the Forge sense), ruled by the genre, I'm perfectly willing to play (or run) with what you call the "modern approach". The system creates the framework and the players fill it with imagined content. While it can't be said that the system rules the story, it definitely shapes it. And, once again, it works this way both for combat and non-combat activities.
It is important to note that in this approach it is not the world changing to fit the party. There is no "world" as a fixed entity at all. There is a story with these main characters, and not any others; the story defined by their backgrounds, their relations, their nemeses. It's perfectly reasonable for the dice rolls to be affected by how important is something in the character concept, not what his level of proficiency is, of for wounds to be something that mechanically help the hero.

Finally, in a gamist game, I expect to be challenged myself, as a player. I get no fun from rolling, adding and comparing numbers, I get fun from overcoming challenges by my wits, my social skills, my tactical thinking. It always requires some measure of game world coherence (because otherwise I can't make sensible decisions in it), but it also requires a correct balance. It's not fun and no challenge to fight (or argue with) something trivial or impossible to defeat; it is also not fun to face the same, "balanced" thing every time (even if it is "skinned" differently). The structure of a challenge needs to be simple enough to understand, but also complicated enough to give meaningful choices.
In this approach, making things more and less difficult only has sense if they are parts of a single challenge (a political intrigue, a dungeon crawl), joined together by some kind of resource management. For me, a game could have no levels (no power scale) at all and still be fun. But the difficulties need to be varied in nature, requiring different kinds of ingenuity and cooperation from players. This means that the system creates a definite structure and the fictional content may only be shaped in its bounds - even if there are no precise rules that address it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the traditional approach, the GM sets a game-mechanical difficulty that reflects the imagined reality of the ingame situation. The players then try to succeed at their die roll, or perhaps to change the ingame situation to reduce the difficulty before rolling. It is the GM's job to work out how much benefit the players get from those sorts of efforts (eg what is the bonus to a Diplomacy roll if the players offer the NPC a bribe). Once the dice are rolled, it also the GM's job to specify what exactly is the ingame meaning of game-mechanical success or failure (eg does the NPC agree to become your lifelong servant, or simply offer you a small grunt of encouragement?)

I am definitely of this school. The players engage the situation by imagining it, and deciding what to do based upon the situation.

In the modern approach, the game-mechanical difficulty is determined by the game's encounter-building guidelines - whether the level of a skill challenge, in 4e, or the dictates of the pass/fail cycle, in a game like HeroQuest 2nd ed. The GM then describes the gameworld in such a way as to make that difficulty level make sense (eg the difficulty of the Acrobatics check for level 30 characters is 35 - it's Astral Teflon Slime!). The players engage the challenge by making skill checks, and depending on how those skill checks pan out as the challenge unfolds the GM describes the ingame situation as evolving in the appropriate way, and the players respond to that in their subsequent skill checks.

"The players engage the challenge by making skill checks" may not undermine "creativity and imagination", but does (IMHO & IME) undermine the "reality" of and engagement with the setting. The circumstantial malleability of the campaign setting so described feels weird and dream-like to me......appropriate for games that are intended to take place within a setting such as a dreamscape, cartoon, Oz, or Wonderland, but less appropriate for games that seek to emulate a less (for want of a better word) goofy setting.

(FWIW, I think Mallus has devised a perfect setting for the 4e ruleset.)



RC

 

[Chrono22]

For me, a game could have no levels (no power scale) at all and still be fun. But the difficulties need to be varied in nature, requiring different kinds of ingenuity and cooperation from players. This means that the system creates a definite structure and the fictional content may only be shaped in its bounds - even if there are no precise rules that address it.

Alternatively, you could have a system where you have precise rules that are only addressed within the bounds of the fictional content.

 

[ExploderWizard]

[Originally Posted by pemerton ]
In the modern approach, the game-mechanical difficulty is determined by the game's encounter-building guidelines - whether the level of a skill challenge, in 4e, or the dictates of the pass/fail cycle, in a game like HeroQuest 2nd ed. The GM then describes the gameworld in such a way as to make that difficulty level make sense (eg the difficulty of the Acrobatics check for level 30 characters is 35 - it's Astral Teflon Slime!). The players engage the challenge by making skill checks, and depending on how those skill checks pan out as the challenge unfolds the GM describes the ingame situation as evolving in the appropriate way, and the players respond to that in their subsequent skill checks.[/QUOTE]

In my mind, the method of creating material for the game world as a justification response for the mechanics is bass ackwards. The game world space belongs to the participants and the mechanics should fit into that space rather than the space expanding and contracting to fit the mechanics.

As an example, I might not want to have to include astral teflon slime or anything else of that sort in my game world.

In this way the rules serve the game. The question at hand is this: What is the game?

Is the game the events transpiring in the imagined space or the application of mechanical operations?

For me the game is primarily the former.

[Originally Posted by pemerton ]
I'm wondering what experiences others have had in actual play, whether of 4e skill challenges, or in other "modern" games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, etc. Has anyone actually encountered the "exercise in dice rolling" phenomenon, or is it a merely theoretical objection?[/QUOTE]

I have had play experience with 4E skill challenges but not those other games mentioned. Based on my experiences with skill challenges as a player I have decided not to use them in my own 4E campaign.

I find the concept interesting but the actual procedure too structured and tedious for my tastes. Mechanically it is a combat against a task featuring players taking turns rolling to "attack" the task with thier chosen weapon (skill). Challenge complexity is opponent level. Number of successes represent monster hit points, and number of failures are PC hit points.

Skills are used in my game whenever the players wish to make use of them. I do not construct scenes for the purpose of round robin skill checks.

 

[the Jester]

I run skill challenges very loosely; I'd say I use a "traditional" approach with "modern" mechanics.

Typically, I don't inform the pcs of what skills they can try to use. They attempt various skills and I adjudicate their success or failure accordingly. Not all skill attempts will succeed- using Dungeoneering in the middle of a ballroom dance might just be silly- but I try to be open to creative uses of various skills.

When it comes to things like the astral teflon slime or what have you, I'm usually pretty good at justifying the DCs I'm shooting for. Who needs astral teflon slime when you can have lard or grease or slush or oil or....

 

[Chrono22]

I think your distinction between "modern" and "traditional" isn't correct... both types have existed since D&D started. Whether you were playing one or the other depended on your GM.

 

[Stormonu]

In the traditional approach, the GM sets a game-mechanical difficulty that reflects the imagined reality of the ingame situation. The players then try to succeed at their die roll, or perhaps to change the ingame situation to reduce the difficulty before rolling. It is the GM's job to work out how much benefit the players get from those sorts of efforts (eg what is the bonus to a Diplomacy roll if the players offer the NPC a bribe). Once the dice are rolled, it also the GM's job to specify what exactly is the ingame meaning of game-mechanical success or failure (eg does the NPC agree to become your lifelong servant, or simply offer you a small grunt of encouragement?)

In the modern approach, the game-mechanical difficulty is determined by the game's encounter-building guidelines - whether the level of a skill challenge, in 4e, or the dictates of the pass/fail cycle, in a game like HeroQuest 2nd ed. The GM then describes the gameworld in such a way as to make that difficulty level make sense (eg the difficulty of the Acrobatics check for level 30 characters is 35 - it's Astral Teflon Slime!). The players engage the challenge by making skill checks, and depending on how those skill checks pan out as the challenge unfolds the GM describes the ingame situation as evolving in the appropriate way, and the players respond to that in their subsequent skill checks.

After a recent discussion with my wife over BECM D&D and 4E, one of the things that struck me was that in the older D&D, it was actually expected over time that the things you did would be more successful. It became easier to hit enemies as AC was fairly static and saving throws became easier and easier to make. 2E's proficiencies were outside the leveling system and did not scale, though you could invest more NWP's into a skill to make it easier; generally the difficulty didn't get harder and harder as you went up. Starting with 3E and becoming a core concept to 4E, challenges began to scale with the level; Often in 3E as you became higher level, the challenges became more difficult. In 4E, the challenge grows at the same rate as you do, so the overall end effect is to negate player advantage over the obstacles you face - keeping it challenging.

Some people think that the modern approach undermines creativity and imagination, and instead turns the game into an exercise in dice rolling. My own experience is the opposite - namely, that it provides a game mechanical platform for the GM and players alike to exercise imagination and creativity both in framing the situation, and then playing out its resolution.

I'm wondering what experiences others have had in actual play, whether of 4e skill challenges, or in other "modern" games like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth, etc. Has anyone actually encountered the "exercise in dice rolling" phenomenon, or is it a merely theoretical objection?

I don't think it undermines creativity, but it does create a disconnect that can create dissatisfaction and derision aimed at the system.

In theory, I like skill challenges and have tried to use them in numerous games (and have been using less structured forms in older games before their presentation and formalization in 4E). However, in actual play I tend to find they come off rather stiffly and rarely work how I had envisioned. Often it is because despite all attempts, it boils down to one or two characters doing the heavy lifting and everyone else either sitting back or using a form of "aid another".

 

[Ariosto]

I think your distinction between "modern" and "traditional" isn't correct... both types have existed since D&D started. Whether you were playing one or the other depended on your GM.

Really? Where do you find evidence of the existence of the prerequisites for the "modern" style in 1970 (start of Blackmoor adventures), or 1974 (publication of D&D) or even 1979 (publication of DMG)?

Even games with prominent "character skill rating systems" such as Traveller (1977) and RuneQuest (1978) presumed that demands for, modifications to, and consequences of "skill rolls" would reflect considerations of the nature of the imagined situation. That was so in combat encounters as well.

There simply was no equivalent of the complex rigging to assure a consistent 55% (or whatever) chance regardless of how high or low a rating a character nominally has or what might sensibly be the difference between tempting Wimpy with a hamburger and trying to convince Joan of Arc to fight for England.

 

[Barastrondo]

Must it be one or the other?

It seems to me that the two work at their best side-by-side. To use the "climb walls" example, when you're at 11th level, you can now climb walls that flummoxed you when you were 1st level at a tiny difficulty. On the other hand, you're now going to environments inaccessible to you before; you can now try to climb the fabled glass mountain, which will still challenge you. By moving back and forth between the two, you get the best of both worlds: the mundane environments you cut your teeth on are realistically no longer much of a challenge (though you may still hang out there often, and find different challenges within them), and there's always a new level of challenge to find so you don't get bored.

I tend to see the mechanics as a toolkit. Sometimes you use them for simulation purposes (when the player decide to climb a wall just because it's there), sometimes you use them for gameplay challenges (when you decide that the frost-giant lair they're sacking could have some appropriately icy glacial walls to challenge climbers). It's like monster placement; sometimes you place a low-level monster specifically because that's what you'd expect to be there, sometimes you place a high-level monster because the PCs need a challenge, and you work out an entirely plausible in-world rationale for why it's there afterwards.