D&D 4E Pemertonian Scene-Framing; A Good Approach to D&D 4e

[pemerton]

In general terms, my view is that tailoring a scene to PC resources means they are not managing resources. The GM is using PC resources as a yardstick or cue. In other words, if the challenge I face is the same whether I have full HP or half HP, I really don't need to concern myself with HP loss. I can push on knowing I'll face an appropriate threat for my resources and enjoy the excitement.

However, if a GM sticks to their tables, or prep, or information given to the players irrespective of what I have left in the tank, then they can say it's my own damn fault I got beaten to a pulp, I should have prepared and managed my stuff better.

I generally run things the first way rather than the second - though 4e PCs are sufficiently resource-independent (I've found even absence of healing surges can be worked around with my party, for an encounter or two at least - the paladin has LoH for surgeless healing for others, and the fighter has Dwarven Armour) that the gap between the two isn't as big as in (say) AD&D.

Like I said upthread, resource management is more about introducing a new tactical challenge and story element into the encounter - eg how do we handle this given that our fighter, who normally takes the frontline, has no surges, has used his Dwarven Armour, and has 4 hp left. (This happened in my last session.)

So the players can manage resources meaningfully to shape the party's "vulnerability profile", and hence resulting story outcomes. But it's not really about managing resources to handle challenges in the Gygaxian sense.

 

[pemerton]

If I am running a skill challenge off the cuff, and the choices of the PC's lead them to have to pick a lock during said skill challenge, do you use the static lock DC's or do you go with the appropriate DC for their level? This is of course a relatively simple example but I think it illustrates the point I was trying to make.

I don't think the DMG gives a clear answer to this. Essentials tends to be clearer, in part by using fewer "objective" DCs than the PHB/DMG.

I think best practice for default 4e is to use level-appropriate DCs, and then - if it seems necessary - use the "objective" DCs to guide your narration.

If this won't work, eg because there was prior narration settling the nature of the lock, then I'd suggest either (i) narrating some advantage/disadvantage to explain the change from the "objective" DC to the level-aprorpiate one, and/or (ii) requiring multiple successes to open the lock - so in effect the "objective" DC becomes the DC for a simple check, and in the skill challenge this is broken down into more detailed resolution over multiple checks.

 

[Argyle King]

I think it is hard to have meaningful resource management when the players don't know what the challenges are in relation to which they're planning.

For instance, how can you meaningfully choose whether or not to spend a player resource (gp, spell slots, whatever) on food if you don't know the odds of (i) successful foraging in general, and (ii) of animals or NPCs having recently been through the area cleaining out all the food, and (iii) finding an abandoned food wagon, and . . . etc etc.

In classic D&D, the players do know: they know the turn cycle, they know the GM rolls for wandering monsters every turn with a 1-in-6 chance, etc. Out of the dungeon it's all a bit fuzzier, but there's a reason Gygaxian gamist D&D is focused on the dungeon!

To some extent, you would know those things by engaging the game world.

The ability to forage for food is going to be different in a barren wasteland than it is in The Elemental Plane of French Onion Soup. Though, in the case of the latter, it would probably be wise to invest in a boat.

Beyond that? Well... what do you feel you/your character should do to prepare?

For what it's worth, to some extent I do agree that the DM -by default- tends to have more control of pacing. However, what I try to do when running a game (one which isn't strongly framed) is simply look at what seems to make sense given the situation. Odds lean toward that happening; however, I still do allow for unexpected things to happen. If I'm not sure what I want to happen, yes, I simply roll and let the dice/fate decide. I might have a vague idea of "ok, I'm going to roll every X amount of time," but that amount of time isn't something which remains static. As with the food example above, when/why I'm rolling or deciding something comes into play is going to change depending upon the scenery.

Too, this is something which ties into previous posts I've had elsewhere concerning splitting my role as DM and NPC handler. My NPCs aren't static; they do things when the PCs aren't around. In the castle example above, sure, as DM I can simply decide the antagonist has a big enough force to destroy the castle. I typically don't like to make that sort of decision on whim alone though because I feel that undermines what I'm trying to do by allowing players to invest in the game world and care about it. That's not to say the antagonist cannot destroy the castle of the PCs; I allow it, but I try to look at both the narrative and the sim workings of the world to see if he can and what his chances of success are. To a lot of people, this probably sounds like insanity due to increased book keeping, and -honestly- it is more work, but I'm ok with that because I enjoy doing it. Part of the fun for me is seeing how things turn out. Even if I'm running a game where I don't keep close tabs on things, I feel I can still look at the situation and have a pretty good idea of what fits into the ballpark of making sense. An evil warlord who has an army of demons at his disposal will probably have a greater chance of me deciding he has the forces to overcome a castle than a local group of brigands who can barely scrounge together enough equipment to rob weary travelers.

If I can rewind a little bit though, I'd say I usually* hesitate from just arbitrarily saying the BBEG destroys the castle of the PCs for much the same reason I usually* hesitate from just arbitrarily saying level 1 PCs in a D&D game open the door only to be teleported into a battle with an Awakened Tarrasque which has 20 levels in monk. I feel like it's kind of like the DM using Bigby's Floating Middle Finger to the players.

*As mentioned previously, my views do change depending upon the system and the group. My default answer and mindset is what exists in a vacuum; without outside influence. The assumptions that a system is built around is going to change some of my views. Likewise, the tastes of the group I happen to be gaming with at the time will be taken into consideration. It's also worth mentioning that sometimes I like to just play a different style of game because I want to. Whatever the case, I make an effort to inform the prospective players about what sort of game I will be running.

A 1st level party are stood at the entrance to a deep, dark cave. And one player says to the GM "Do we have any idea what's in here?"
And the GM says "Well, now you mention it, you overheard the innkeeper last night talking about a vicious troll that lives in these parts."

Now just writing that down we have no idea what the GM is doing. But at 2 extremes they could be:

a) sticking fastidiously to notes and maps and giving truthful intel about a troll.
b) lying through their teeth simply to create tension, uncertainty and fear about the grim fate lying in the darkness

I would say that (a) allows resource management. We can, as a party, leave in a hurry and re-prepare to attempt to battle a troll.
I would say that (b) means little to nothing in terms of managing resources. It's tension and pacing dressed up as information.

For example, the party pushes on and are attacked by stirges in the cave entrance. If the players know the troll is true they can start to make a judgement about what resources are expendable on the stirges. However, if the troll warning could be a wind-up, it has next to no value in resource management. What is does is create fear which ramps up the tension with the stirges. Both can be enjoyable - but one is about players managing resources and one is about the GM managing tension.

However, knowing at any instance whether we are playing (a) or (b) requires either running it, or playing in it with a well understood social contract. And the game may switch between them at various points. So, interesting as your starvation question is I'm simply unable to tell you what's happening at your table. In my opinion, only you and your group can ever truly know.

My experience is that rpgs feature significantly more (b) than (a). However, I know people that GM, very consciously and consistently, in style (a). If the table is such that information given by the GM is done with integrity and in good faith and that the passage of time is collectively understood then resource management play works fine. I tried to illustrate this earlier with the classic dungeoncrawl example.



In general terms, my view is that tailoring a scene to PC resources means they are not managing resources. The GM is using PC resources as a yardstick or cue. In other words, if the challenge I face is the same whether I have full HP or half HP, I really don't need to concern myself with HP loss. I can push on knowing I'll face an appropriate threat for my resources and enjoy the excitement.

However, if a GM sticks to their tables, or prep, or information given to the players irrespective of what I have left in the tank, then they can say it's my own damn fault I got beaten to a pulp, I should have prepared and managed my stuff better.

I don't think I'm explaining this well, but I hope it's as thought provoking as I've found other posts in the thread.

In theory, I'd say that I generally lean toward A.

However, that doesn't preclude B from also being true. The stories overheard at a tavern might be truth, lies, or somewhere in between.

I'm also not against filling in some blanks later. While I'm aware that does somewhat contradict what I've said elsewhere, I'm ok with there being a few rough edges to things. I am someone who likes to sketch out a lot of detail, but that doesn't necessarily mean I need to know everything. I can use what's come before as a guideline. For example, I can know that the local village has people who live in it without necessarily knowing the exact names and professions of every villager. That being said, if something gains more detail in the course of play, I make a note of it so as to be consistent later. I'm also someone who enjoys prep and world building, so it's not uncommon for me to go back and fill in more detail during my down time here at home.

I'm also somewhat casual when it comes to my relationship as DM with the players. I'm not very strict about having control over the game. If I don't have something specifically sketched out, I'm perfectly ok with allowing the players to illustrate and create part of the world. There have been times when a player has asked me what they could see down a hallway, and I've responded with "you tell me; what do you see; what is there?"

 

[Imaro]

I don't think the DMG gives a clear answer to this. Essentials tends to be clearer, in part by using fewer "objective" DCs than the PHB/DMG.

Agree, this was what I was trying to convey earlier (probably poorly) but that there didn't seem to be any (or very little) guidance on the matter for a DM.

I think best practice for default 4e is to use level-appropriate DCs, and then - if it seems necessary - use the "objective" DCs to guide your narration.

When running 4e I usually go with level-appropriate for skill challenge and objective (where available) for single skill checks. It can create an odd circumstance where a DC for nearly identical actions are different, but it is rarely noticed by the actual players... unless they've rolled the same number before and completed the nearly identical task but don't (or vice-versa) this time.

If this won't work, eg because there was prior narration settling the nature of the lock, then I'd suggest either (i) narrating some advantage/disadvantage to explain the change from the "objective" DC to the level-aprorpiate one, and/or (ii) requiring multiple successes to open the lock - so in effect the "objective" DC becomes the DC for a simple check, and in the skill challenge this is broken down into more detailed resolution over multiple checks.

Like I said above it's been my experience that it is rarely noticed by players except in odd circumstances like the one I described above... I have actually been leaning towards using one and only one method for consistency sake. The other thing I find kind of off-putting is that certain objective DC's are listed as "moderate/easy/hard" (like balancing on a surface less than 5ft) when they should (at least IMO for consistency) have an objective number for difficulty, it makes it even harder to understand when and when not to use objective DC's or why they put them in the game for certain very specific actions but not for others.

 

[D'karr]

Hmm,this isn't exactly what I meant... as a simple example...

If I am running a skill challenge off the cuff, and the choices of the PC's lead them to have to pick a lock during said skill challenge, do you use the static lock DC's or do you go with the appropriate DC for their level? This is of course a relatively simple example but I think it illustrates the point I was trying to make.

You can do either. If you are using scene framing you are explicitly tailoring already.

What purpose does the picking of the lock fulfill in that scene? Is it to increase the tension, as the water in the room rises? Is it just a simple bump, and not a real obstacle - something to slow the characters down? Is it an impossibility, and it requires a special key, which they must now find? Each of those presents a "lock" but the purpose of that "lock", within the scene, is different.

 

[Imaro]

You can do either. If you are using scene framing you are explicitly tailoring already.

What purpose does the picking of the lock fulfill in that scene? Is it to increase the tension, as the water in the room rises? Is it just a simple bump, and not a real obstacle - something to slow the characters down? Is it an impossibility, and it requires a special key, which they must now find? Each of those presents a "lock" but the purpose of that "lock", within the scene, is different.

Maybe this is the disconnect that I'm having with this style of play... Why am I deciding a "purpose" for the picking of the lock? I guess, the purpose of the lock is to stop people from getting into a particular space and I put it there because in the context of the setting it would logically be there... so the purpose of picking the lock is to get into thespace it protects? Or maybe I am not understanding the question. Are you saying the difficulty of the lock shouldn't ever be an objetive thing but that I as DM should change it based on... what exactly?

 

[Argyle King]

Maybe this is the disconnect that I'm having with this style of play... Why am I deciding a "purpose" for the picking of the lock? I guess, the purpose of the lock is to stop people from getting into a particular space and I put it there because in the context of the setting it would logically be there... so the purpose of picking the lock is to get into thespace it protects? Or maybe I am not understanding the question. Are you saying the difficulty of the lock shouldn't ever be an objetive thing but that I as DM should change it based on... what exactly?

If the lock is an easily beatable DC -one which the PCs probably don't even need to roll for- the purpose is simply to slow them down. ...a dramatic hurdle if you will; something just to use up actions. In my mind, I'm likening the concept to some of the speed runs which some video games have.

If the lock requires a special key, the purpose tends to be to force you look for that key and direct you toward other areas of the game/world. The original Resident Evil games used this quite a bit. It's kind of like a softer and more passive version of railroading. It doesn't force you to go in a specific direction; often, you will have choices, but eventually you'll be directed that way. It's sort of like a traffic control device. A lot of DMs (myself included) might even still let you try to open the lock without the special key, but doing so will probably be far more difficult.

If the lock is difficult to open, the lock itself is part of the challenge and not simply just part of the world. It's something you need to overcome to advance.


At least that's how I'm perceiving what is being said.

 

[Siberys]

Well, the story. In a book, if there's a lock, but the protagonist can get past it easily, that's it - the protagonist does. It wasn't a challenge, it was window dressing, just like describing the room. If it's actually there in a capacity to impede the PCs, then make it worthwhile. If it's harder but there's no time pressure, there's storywise no difference to a simple lock - add time pressure (the water in the room is rising! We need the artifact locked in that room NOW! &c.) or a meaningful threat (the lock is trapped, and as a master thief I can tell; if I'm not extremely careful, I'll die!). If you don't, there's no story significance, so why bother wasting time on it? Say "You found a lock, but you're a skilled locksmith and easily bypass it." Conservation of detail and all that - don't spend time on stuff that isn't important unless you're trying to mislead your audience (the players).

If you're going for more of a process-sim approach, this won't be satisfying, but for scene-framing it's great - you want to get to the exciting, tension-filled parts fast, and anything that isn't is handwaved. Television shows don't dwell on the time the characters spend getting up and dressed in the morning for the same reason.

EDIT: Scooped by Johnny.

 

[Imaro]

Ok, I've got it. I guess I just don't play in that style... which isn't to say I think that style is inferior or mine is better but I tend to go for a more sandbox style... where the PC's have all found "goals" they want to pursue and I leave it up to them how best to pursue said goals.

In our most recent game the PC's have decided to go into the sport of predator-bird fighting in a bid to get an invitation to participate in the underground fighting-pits where they hope to gain enough notoriety and recognition as one of various steps in their quest to get a patron for their bid for citizenship (a multi-step process) in a ruined settlement called Blackgate Fort. In order to get the mutant eagle they previously acquired enhanced with steam-work and/or clock-tech by an artificer they agreed to acquire a book of formulae from an outcast duergar chymerist who has taken up residence upon the Bleak Shore on the borders of the Hag Coven's lands.

After navigating the Bleak Shore using a partial map that had been provided, as well as the skills of the party's Ranger they entered the chymerist's laboratory and fought off a wave of chymerically altered vermin and animals that the chymerist kept as guard animals (trained only to allow representatives from the Hag Coven into the laboratory and to warn him if anyone else entered). Now they are about to infiltrate the lab proper, where unbekownst to them the chymerist is preparing his newest batch of wild mutants from slaves he acquired at Blackgate (which of course he will use to help him fight off the PC's if necessary) for tribute to the Hag Queens. However the double bronze doors which lead into the lab proper are locked and equiped with a trap (multi-steps to disarm with long term hit point damage consequences at various stages of disarming it that cannot be healed before the next encounter) it was designed this way, like the rest of the lab, before the PC's went into it.

Now setting the DC for the actual lock to be picked (once the trap is disabled or run it's course) beforehand... is it set with objective DC's, is it based on the page 42 DC/level chart or what?

 

[Argyle King]

I know it's bad form to quote yourself, but I thought some examples might help.

If the lock is an easily beatable DC -one which the PCs probably don't even need to roll for- the purpose is simply to slow them down. ...a dramatic hurdle if you will; something just to use up actions. In my mind, I'm likening the concept to some of the speed runs which some video games have.

Ok, so let's say there is a bomb ticking down, and it will soon explode. For sake of arbitrary example, we'll also say it's a negative energy bomb which will level drain you to death (if you're playing 3rd Edition) or will chew up enough of your healing surges (if you're playing 4th edition) to possibly kill you. You've already failed the attempt to disarm the bomb, so your only choice now is to get far enough away from it to survive before it explodes.

One of the paths away from the bomb is a long hallway which has several locked doors. All of the locks are very simple locks; so simple the DM says you don't even need to make a skill roll. However, you do need to still take the actions necessary to pick the locks.

In this case, the locks are simply there to slow you down and make the passage of time more dramatic. Can you get through all of the doors before the bomb explodes and kills you? Should you have instead attempted to take the shortcut which required you to risk running down a different hallway which had no doors at all, but was filled with traps?

If the lock requires a special key, the purpose tends to be to force you look for that key and direct you toward other areas of the game/world. The original Resident Evil games used this quite a bit. It's kind of like a softer and more passive version of railroading. It doesn't force you to go in a specific direction; often, you will have choices, but eventually you'll be directed that way. It's sort of like a traffic control device. A lot of DMs (myself included) might even still let you try to open the lock without the special key, but doing so will probably be far more difficult.

You're in a dungeon looking for the Codpiece of Vecna. It's a long forgotten artifact which you learned of after deciphering some old scrolls. It is rumored that it has powers which will help you win the affections of the princess. Delving into the dungeon, you discover that the Codpiece of Vecna is locked away in a demiplane, and, to summon it from the demiplane, you need three magic orbs which you will then place inside of an enchanted treasure chest which exists here on the material plane.

You come to a circular central chamber which has 6 (choices!) doors -which presumably lead elsewhere. In the middle of the chamber is a stone table upon which the enchanted treasure chest rests. Sticking out of the chest is an iron key which was presumably the key used to open the lock on the front of the chest. Attached to the key is a keyring, and upon that keyring is another dangling key which looks to be made out of ruby. You then remember the old man at the tavern saying you would need special keys to find each of the orbs; one would be ruby, one would be sapphire, and one would be made out of canary diamond.

Looking around the room, you notice that three of the doors are typical iron doors with one keyhole. You also notice that one of the doors is painted orange and has two keyholes. The other two are verdigis (green) and violet, and they both also have two keyholes. Noticing that there are two keys already in the room, you try both of them and discover that the iron key does not fit into any of the colored doors; the ruby key fits into one of the keyholes of the orange door and one of the keyholes of the violet door, but does not fit into either of the keyholes on the green one. You discover that the iron key does fit into all of the iron doors, but the ruby key fits into none of them.

Discussing what to do next, it occurs to the party that rubies are red and canary diamonds are yellow; yellow and red makes orange, so that must mean you need those two keys for the orange doors. It doesn't take long to then figure out that combinations of two colored keys match up with the colors of the doors. Only having one colored key, the party needs to seek them out. Each key is presumably found elsewhere in the dungeon; behind the iron doors.

If the lock is difficult to open, the lock itself is part of the challenge and not simply just part of the world. It's something you need to overcome to advance.

The party is being chased by a particularly vicious group of kobolds. Being low on HP, the party seeks a way to find refuge. The party rogue spots a nearby door, but it is locked. He believes he can get it open, but he needs time to do so. It's a difficult enough lock that the DM calls for a skill challenge consisting of 4 successful checks to get it open. The kobolds will be upon the party in 6 rounds.

In this case, the door itself is what you need to get by.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really, you could combine all of them into one adventure.

You're in a dungeon looking for the Codpiece of Vecna. It's a long forgotten artifact which you learned of after deciphering some old scrolls. It is rumored that it has powers which will help you win the affections of the princess. Delving into the dungeon, you discover that the Codpiece of Vecna is locked away in a demiplane, and, to summon it from the demiplane, you need three magic orbs which you will then place inside of an enchanted treasure chest which exists here on the material plane.

You come to a circular central chamber which has 6 doors and two hallways -one of the hallways being the way you entered the room from. In the middle of the chamber is a stone table upon which the enchanted treasure chest rests. Sticking out of the chest is an iron key which was presumably the key used to open the lock on the front of the chest. Attached to the key is a keyring, and upon that keyring is another dangling key which looks to be made out of ruby. You then remember the old man at the tavern saying you would need special keys to find each of the orbs; one would be ruby, one would be sapphire, and one would be made out of canary diamond.

Looking around the room, you notice that two of the doors are typical iron doors with one keyhole. Above both of the hallways are dwarven runes which one of the party members translates and tells the rest of the party that the runes say "exit." One of those hallways is (as mentioned) the one you entered the circular chamber from, and the other seems to be pretty obviously trapped, but you can see some light at the end of the obviously trapped tunnel. A third door is also iron, but it differs from the other two in that it has a barred window set into it, a cheap quality lock, and the same dwarven runes ("exit") painted on it. Looking through the barred window, you see that there is a line of similar doors at regular intervals further down the hallway, and you can also see some light at the end of the hallway; coming from somewhere beyond the final door.

You also notice that one of the doors is painted orange and has two keyholes. The other two are verdigis (green) and violet, and they both also have two keyholes. Noticing that there are two keys already in the room, you try both of them and discover that the iron key does not fit into any of the colored doors; the ruby key fits into one of the keyholes of the orange door and one of the keyholes of the violet door, but does not fit into either of the keyholes on the green one. You discover that the iron key does fit into all of the iron doors, but the ruby key fits into none of them.

Discussing what to do next, it occurs to the party that rubies are red and canary diamonds are yellow; yellow and red makes orange, so that must mean you need those two keys for the orange doors. It doesn't take long to then figure out that combinations of two colored keys match up with the colors of the doors. Only having one colored key, the party needs to seek them out. Each key is presumably found elsewhere in the dungeon; behind the iron doors.

Eventually, the party finds all of the colored keys. Using those keys, they then open each of the colored doors and find the orbs. However, upon returning to the central chamber, they find that the chest in the middle of the room is now closed and locked. Glowing sigils are now on the chest's lock. The rogue doesn't recognize them, but the party cleric makes a religion check and discovers that they are part of a curse/trap that helps to keep the chest closed when locked, and it prevents the iron key from working again. the rogue and cleric engage in a skill challenge to get the lock open; with the cleric using his skills to get by the curse and the rogue using his skills to get by the more mundane features of the locking mechanism.

Unfortunately, they fail the skill challenge, and now the sigils turn into numbers. The numbers begin to count down, and a beeping noise comes from the chest each time the numbers count down. The cleric gets some divine insight concerning the nature of what is going on, and he sees a vision of a negative energy explosion coming from the chest; killing the party. If the party hopes to survive, they need to get as far away from the chest as they can; as quickly as they can. One of the exit options is to go back the way the party came, but doing so will take too long; there's no light at the end of that tunnel for a while. One of the options is the trap filled hallway which seems to be the quickest route to daylight, but is also the most obviously dangerous. One of the options is the hallway with series of doors that have cheap locks; going that way is safer than the trap filled hallway, but is more time consuming.