Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6041720" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I wanted to address this part specifically.In my estimation, groups typically pay less heed to mechanical non-combat resolution because D&D's roots are ensconced in gamist trappings and accompanying expectations that are premised upon combat resolution and hand-wavey, over-the-top punitive exploration "challenges".  However, the former was more overt, concrete and * relatively stable while the latter was much more opaque, amorphous, and punitive/swingy in the extreme.  How did this condition the user-base?Turtling; Extremely cautious, strategic play whereby PC's modus operandi was predicated upon reduction of most (all?) risk by circumvention of the resolution mechanics > This evolved into strategic power play development which escalated a rock/paper/scissors strategic arms race pitting the PCs versus the DM > This brought about swingy conflict resolution that was almost exclusively anti-climactic or a TPK with a smattering of WAHOO moments sprinkled in (most often not a well deployed tactical resource...but rather a lucky critical when the fight is looking dim) > This arms race and unpredictable swinginess bred the malignant "DM force (fudging)" after too many climaxes fell flat, or too many random encounters (meant as walkthroughs or to constrain resource recharge) went haywire and killed a PC or two, or too many steam engines went off their respective rails.* relatively stable when compared to exploration...ultimately, combat swinginess was  aplenty depending on game content and DM belligerence or player  foolishness.So you had 10 - 15 years of Step on Up culture running the show that expected (i) little to no thematic/archetype-driven PC build choice, (ii) overt, concrete, but relatively light, combat resolution (iii) hand-wavey (amechanical if I can coin the term) exploration gameplay manifesting as free-form investigation, attempting to pick the correct wire (red or blue) and diffuse the ticking timebomb, (iv) hardcore strategic play (and corresponding develop power plays as SOP) to circumvent the swingy mechanical resolution of conflict before a potential grizzly end was in the hands of the dice, (v) cut-throat, aggressive (borderline belligerent) DMing.Following that, AD&D2e hits and we're no longer wargamers.  We're now trying to recreate the stories from Dragonlance.  2e gives us no tools for it but is explicit in that it expects these stories to emerge from our play.  But how?  Nowhere in the rulset is there support for that style of play equal to those expectations.  Thus the birth of DM force/fudging/railroading (or, if not the birth...the massive proliferation of it to a pulp phenomenon).On through 3e and 4e.  These systems underwent some large rules changes and a further evolution of expectation.  All of a sudden robust PC build resources (and archetype rendering) become an expectation.  Tactical depth becomes an expectation.  Encounter budgeting tightens and becomes an expectation.  Non-combat resolution becomes further and further hard-coded and becomes an expectation.  Metagaming gets support on both sides of the screen.  Player's ability to step outside of their PCs (author and director stance) becomes supported and (for some) becomes an expectation (for others it becomes anathema to their playstyle expectations).  More metagame tools for DMs to predictably play to theme (and accordingly reward their PCs) and reliably set the stage for climax become an expectation.  Etc, etc.All the while, Indy games were emerging and folks were playing them and finding things they were missing from D&D.  Some of these missing things were robust mechanical support for exploration and investigation or  incentivized narrativist play for co-authoring of exploration.So from that evolution above we have all of these camps at tension regarding the level of mechanical exploration support that is right for D&D and genre and playstyle expectations for exploration within D&D.  Some folks want no support.  They want a synergized/organic, logic and inference cat & mouse game with the DM.  Others look at that relationship with a wary eye on all of those grounds (synergized + organic vs illusion + DM force, logic + inference vs opaque + arbitrary + inanity, trust vs belligerent + passive aggression).  Others want to encumbrance rules, ration counts, condition tracks, Oregon/Appalachian Trail attrition.  Others want to skip it and move directly to the next scene.  Some want Teleport and Divination bounded, hard-coded or at least siloed.  Others want those spells to maintain their legacy and are fine with the narrowing affect they have on the game...that's D&D to them.The thing is, it is extremely easy to create hard-coded mechanical resolution for Exploration play in D&D.  There are systems out there that support it well.  D&D can easily go that route.  Its all in the designers putting the man hours together to map those mechanics to their core engine (and the cahoneys to stare down those to whom it is "not D&D").  I've had so many extremely rewarding Exploration Skill Challenges in 4e that I'm entirely convinced that a good system in 5e (that satisfies those that aren't keen on Skill Challenges) is well within its grasp.  What would go an enormously long way toward furthering the mission is an Exploration Challenge Resolution Mechanic that: - sets and makes clear the stakes, puts the PCs on a track (in the middle) and has hard-coded conditions to move up and down that track for ultimate success or failure- incentivizes and empowers unoptimized but properly thematic play (with bennies or fate points) - hard-codes roll results toward gradation in task resolution outcome rather than binary "pass/fail"- teaches/cultivates DM's genre logic and emboldens them toward properly preparing (pre-game) and improvising (during game) exploration-challenge-relevant outcomes I really think that technique (the last bit) in this area is sorely needed.  Its just an enormous blind-spot for a lot of the playerbase given the game's history.  They approach exploration challenges in a Step on Up perspective and it just turns into an exercise in optimizing and dice rolling.  Proper incentives for asymmetrical approaches and dynamic, exploration story-changing mechanics will help undo the reflexive propensity for that approach as well.</blockquote>

Verification