Space and time in RPG setting and situation

[Emberashh]

This entire topic feels like im trying to understand rocket surgery, and I say that as someone who actually knows an inordinate amount about such things.

That being said, I will note about the earlier example of the Wand of Such and Such that its apparent failure to work is being presented as an arbitrary happenstance, dictated by the GM or some other unspoken of force.

Thats a pretty important distinction that seems glossed over in a topic that seems to be talking about consistency and verisimilitude (in very esoteric language, i might add).

Normally, or rather ideally, the Wand of Such and Such should only fail because theres something mechanically causing it to do so. The Wand itself has an imperfect mechanism, giving it a chance for failure. Something in the world has mechanics that work against the Wand. Etc.

Ie, the Player rolled too low on their MacGuffin skill, so the Wand sputters and no door is found. Or the Door has been enchanted by Dr. Evil and it overpowers the magic of the wand, maintaining its concealment, that then gets circumvented by Jimmy the Rogue who rolled really high on his Find the Door Enchanted by Dr. Evil skill.

Perhaps both happened, and why the Player failed was because the Door imposed a penalty on their MacGuffin check.

I think getting caught up in an esoteric quagmire trying to upend how the fiction manifests isn't a great use of time.

 

[pemerton]

Normally, or rather ideally, the Wand of Such and Such should only fail because theres something mechanically causing it to do so. The Wand itself has an imperfect mechanism, giving it a chance for failure. Something in the world has mechanics that work against the Wand. Etc.

Why?

Why can't it fail, or misfire in some fashion, because the wielder fails to properly deploy and control its pwer?

 

[Lanefan]

Why?

Why can't it fail, or misfire in some fashion, because the wielder fails to properly deploy and control its pwer?

It can, but (unless using the wand on spec. without having tested/identified/attuned to it first) surely the wielder would somehow already know about this inherent unreliability and account for it in the fiction:

"Yeah, I'm not getting any pulls with the Wand but it's been wrong before, better give the place a manual search just in case".

If however the Wand already has a track record of being reliable (or is otherwise known to be so) then its results have to be honoured: if it doesn't find anything here now, there'll be nothing here to find later.

 

[Emberashh]

Why?

Why can't it fail, or misfire in some fashion, because the wielder fails to properly deploy and control its pwer?

Thats what I mean about it not being a perfect mechanism, ie, always works. This could translate into a Skill check mechanic.

Its an issue where what works in a book doesn't actually translate to good gameplay.

In a book, you can get away with something like this effectively always working, because typically the give and take of success and failure may not be important to the story being told.

But in a game, theres more than one proverbial master that has to be served, not just story but gameplay. And the gameplay, fundamentally, must always be the chicken that gives birth to the egg that is story. If the gameplay is superflous, then why bother?

You could still do such mechanics in a game, but the question then becomes what are you doing to fill the void in the gameplay you leave in doing so?

Take, for instance, Hogwarts Legacy. The Spell Revelio is an example of this kind of mechanic. It always works and always does what it says it does, without fail.

This is counterbalanced by the fact that what you can reveal with that spell has further gameplay to engage with. Solving puzzles, fighting baddies, etc. The combination ultimately works.

But now lets look at where this utterly fails. In 5e, the 2014 Ranger has two such mechanics, at least if you interpret the abilities and mechanics in such a way that it breaks the game, anyway.

The first is the "Never gets lost except by magic", and the second "You get double food and water when foraging".

Most people that try to interpret these abilities and their relevant mechanics find them wanting, calling the abilities a "skip". This is because, from their POV, there is no gameplay that makes up for the always on, always worke mechanics here.

However, if you interpret the game more favorably, in a way that makes the game work, you can restore that gameplay void.

The Lost ability works in a Hex Crawl because you fundamentally always have to actively navigate a hex crawl; thats the entire point. Not being able to get lost only saves you the time penalty to right yourself when, in the course of navigating a hex crawl, a "Got lost" roll deposits you in an unintended hex. You still have to spend the time to navigate out of that hex, and so there is no gameplay void because the Rangers ability doesn't stop you from navigating into the wrong hex, but it does save you the 1d6 hours to figure out you're in the wrong hex.

With foraging, you still need to be able to forage in wherever you are, and you still need to make the foraging checks in order to benefit, and you still have a potential to roll low on what you get.

Getting double if you succeed simply doesn't induce a true gameplay void at all, but people assert it does because theres voids all over travel and survival rules, which makes it difficult for them to justify running the mechanics properly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Thats what I mean about it not being a perfect mechanism, ie, always works. This could translate into a Skill check mechanic.

Its an issue where what works in a book doesn't actually translate to good gameplay.

In a book, you can get away with something like this effectively always working, because typically the give and take of success and failure may not be important to the story being told.

But in a game, theres more than one proverbial master that has to be served, not just story but gameplay. And the gameplay, fundamentally, must always be the chicken that gives birth to the egg that is story. If the gameplay is superflous, then why bother?

You could still do such mechanics in a game, but the question then becomes what are you doing to fill the void in the gameplay you leave in doing so?

Take, for instance, Hogwarts Legacy. The Spell Revelio is an example of this kind of mechanic. It always works and always does what it says it does, without fail.

This is counterbalanced by the fact that what you can reveal with that spell has further gameplay to engage with. Solving puzzles, fighting baddies, etc. The combination ultimately works.

But now lets look at where this utterly fails. In 5e, the 2014 Ranger has two such mechanics, at least if you interpret the abilities and mechanics in such a way that it breaks the game, anyway.

The first is the "Never gets lost except by magic", and the second "You get double food and water when foraging".

Most people that try to interpret these abilities and their relevant mechanics find them wanting, calling the abilities a "skip". This is because, from their POV, there is no gameplay that makes up for the always on, always worke mechanics here.

However, if you interpret the game more favorably, in a way that makes the game work, you can restore that gameplay void.

The Lost ability works in a Hex Crawl because you fundamentally always have to actively navigate a hex crawl; thats the entire point. Not being able to get lost only saves you the time penalty to right yourself when, in the course of navigating a hex crawl, a "Got lost" roll deposits you in an unintended hex. You still have to spend the time to navigate out of that hex, and so there is no gameplay void because the Rangers ability doesn't stop you from navigating into the wrong hex, but it does save you the 1d6 hours to figure out you're in the wrong hex.

With foraging, you still need to be able to forage in wherever you are, and you still need to make the foraging checks in order to benefit, and you still have a potential to roll low on what you get.

Getting double if you succeed simply doesn't induce a true gameplay void at all, but people assert it does because theres voids all over travel and survival rules, which makes it difficult for them to justify running the mechanics properly.

5e simply doesn't have those rules in place, that's the issue. We don't even know what 'getting lost' might look like, except we know it will never happen! Anyway, I wouldn't assume a hex crawl.

So, in any case, you are showing a bit of the whole possible range of 'uses of time and space' here. You could use space as a kind of puzzle, or obstacle, so presumably when you talk about the 'right' and 'wrong' hexes you are implying there is some goal that lurks out there in some unknown hex. That would be a way of using a hex map. Time will naturally come into play here too, if it is in short supply, or if something like reprovisioning is a significant factor (and note here that the 'double gathering' ranger ability definitely impacts this).

I think what people are objecting to with these ranger abilities is the way in which they obviate entire classes of potential situation. For instance there is no "you get lost and accidentally turn south, ending up in the Great Swamp" and there is statistically little likelihood of the situation "you are low on provisions, you can probably make it back to base before you completely run out" situation. As these are common types of scenario that might arise in wilderness play, it seems a shame to have them entirely obviated by a basic class feature that every ranger has from the get-go. Lets imagine a similar feature, suppose rogues have one that says "never surprised, nothing can sneak up on you." This is an ability of basically the same sort as 'never get lost', yet I think it is a bit more clear how it removes a lot of possible space from play.

But carrying it back to the wand thing, IMHO a wand with lots of charges, or unlimited charges, that detects secret doors with perfect reliability doesn't seem like a very clever bit of game design. Even if the thing works perfectly, it should at least have a real resource cost. However I think its much better if there's a check involved. This is one of the sorts of design decisions 4e often made in its "we really thought about how this works as a game" style of design.

 

[pemerton]

It can, but (unless using the wand on spec. without having tested/identified/attuned to it first) surely the wielder would somehow already know about this inherent unreliability and account for it in the fiction:

"Yeah, I'm not getting any pulls with the Wand but it's been wrong before, better give the place a manual search just in case".

Thats what I mean about it not being a perfect mechanism, ie, always works. This could translate into a Skill check mechanic.

Its an issue where what works in a book doesn't actually translate to good gameplay.

In LotR, it's clear that the Ring of Power can confer many abilities on its wielder, with turning invisible being in some sense the least of them. But only someone of appropriate lineage and stature can master those abilities.

In Dr Strange, much the same is true of artefacts like the Eye of Agomotto.

In neither case is the artefact an imperfect mechanism. It's the wielder who is imperfect, and who has to bring their spiritual and/or moral strength to bear to properly enliven the magical power.

There's no reason this can't be something that is relevant in a FRPG. Although, as @AbdulAlhazred notes, D&D typically has not embraced it.

 

[Emberashh]

We don't even know what 'getting lost' might look like, except we know it will never happen!

Except we do. Getting Lost in 5e results from a failed Survival Check, and you have to spend 1d6 hours to get back on the path. This is an explicit rule.

Anyway, I wouldn't assume a hex crawl.

WOTC did.

For instance there is no "you get lost and accidentally turn south, ending up in the Great Swamp"

But there is.

there is statistically little likelihood of the situation "you are low on provisions, you can probably make it back to base before you completely run out" situation.

Thats not true.

seems a shame to have them entirely obviated

They aren't unless you you deliberately allow them to be.

In neither case is the artefact an imperfect mechanism. It's the wielder who is imperfect, and who has to bring their spiritual and/or moral strength to bear to properly enliven the magical power.

There isn't a real difference between what we're talking about; I think you're getting hung up on the phrasing I used and missing that the point is that in a game its preferable to avoid always-works mechanics period, no matter how it manifests.

This is like, the whole problem with 5es magic system, as it happens.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In LotR, it's clear that the Ring of Power can confer many abilities on its wielder, with turning invisible being in some sense the least of them. But only someone of appropriate lineage and stature can master those abilities.

In Dr Strange, much the same is true of artefacts like the Eye of Agomotto.

In neither case is the artefact an imperfect mechanism. It's the wielder who is imperfect, and who has to bring their spiritual and/or moral strength to bear to properly enliven the magical power.

There's no reason this can't be something that is relevant in a FRPG. Although, as @AbdulAlhazred notes, D&D typically has not embraced it.

Again, 4e is a great game for this. You are 11th level, congratulations! You are now in the realm of people who might master the Torc of Power! Heroic tier individuals need not apply. I mean, you could also base it purely on DCs, which will make it considerably less clear cut, but I think you had mentioned this idea of 'stature' being a possible way to gate stuff like that. Certainly the tier boundaries are clear markers, though there's no reason others (half tier for instance) couldn't work too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Except we do. Getting Lost in 5e results from a failed Survival Check, and you have to spend 1d6 hours to get back on the path. This is an explicit rule.



WOTC did.



But there is.



Thats not true.


They aren't unless you you deliberately allow them to be.



There isn't a real difference between what we're talking about; I think you're getting hung up on the phrasing I used and missing that the point is that in a game its preferable to avoid always-works mechanics period, no matter how it manifests.

This is like, the whole problem with 5es magic system, as it happens.

Well, I don't think we're disagreeing on that point, though I'm not sure about the magic system for various reasons. However, we seem to have pretty different interpretations of what 5e says about getting lost. Really you have to go back to 1e for good rules related to this, no edition since then has really had thorough hexcrawl rules, though they may exist in some 3.x supplements (I rarely played D&D in that era).

 

[Lanefan]

In LotR, it's clear that the Ring of Power can confer many abilities on its wielder, with turning invisible being in some sense the least of them. But only someone of appropriate lineage and stature can master those abilities.

In Dr Strange, much the same is true of artefacts like the Eye of Agomotto.

In neither case is the artefact an imperfect mechanism. It's the wielder who is imperfect, and who has to bring their spiritual and/or moral strength to bear to properly enliven the magical power.

I think both of the items you use as examples are of a significantly different pay grade than a simple Wand of Secret Door Detection.

I mean, hell, one is the single most powerful item on its planet and the other is one of the six most powerful items in the whole universe; thus yes, a mere mortal trying to attune to one of them is probably in for a challenge and had better be mighty resilient going in.

There's no reason this can't be something that is relevant in a FRPG. Although, as @AbdulAlhazred notes, D&D typically has not embraced it.

To some extent I agree with you. 4e and 5e both made magic item attunement and-or identification far too easy IMO; but the one consistent thing throughout all the editions (and through most fiction I can think of quickly) is that for relatively basic items (of which the WoSDD would be one) once you know what they do, that's it - you know what they do.

Which means, the owner/user of a WoSDD is highly likely to know - or easily be able to learn - its general degree of reliability; and then be able to reasonably expect that to reflect in the fiction going forward.

 

[pemerton]

one consistent thing throughout all the editions (and through most fiction I can think of quickly) is that for relatively basic items (of which the WoSDD would be one) once you know what they do, that's it - you know what they do.

Which means, the owner/user of a WoSDD is highly likely to know - or easily be able to learn - its general degree of reliability; and then be able to reasonably expect that to reflect in the fiction going forward.

From the OP:

This objection/complaint rests on assumptions that don't have to be accepted (ie they are not essential for RPGing).

First, it assumes that using the Wand is not itself a type of check that can be resolved in a Character => Situation => Setting fashion. Once we abandon that assumption, we can see that the relationship between using the Wand at time 1, and then making a manual search at time 2, is simply a special instance of the general rules question When are retries allowed?

 

[Lanefan]

From the OP:
This objection/complaint rests on assumptions that don't have to be accepted (ie they are not essential for RPGing).

First, it assumes that using the Wand is not itself a type of check that can be resolved in a Character => Situation => Setting fashion. Once we abandon that assumption, we can see that the relationship between using the Wand at time 1, and then making a manual search at time 2, is simply a special instance of the general rules question When are retries allowed?

Retries are allowed at any time. That's not in question.

What's in question is whether those retries are able to serve any useful purpose (other than wasting time) if all they can accomplish if successful is to confirm fiction that has already been established.

Which means, what's in question one degree above this is when and how setting - and other - elements in the fiction become established (i.e. locked-in to the point that players in-character can usefully plan around them) as opposed to when and how they can still be changed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Retries are allowed at any time. That's not in question.

By you maybe!

What's in question is whether those retries are able to serve any useful purpose (other than wasting time) if all they can accomplish if successful is to confirm fiction that has already been established.

Which means, what's in question one degree above this is when and how setting - and other - elements in the fiction become established (i.e. locked-in to the point that players in-character can usefully plan around them) as opposed to when and how they can still be changed.

These would be questions any decently written game should clarify from the outset.

 

[pemerton]

@Lanefan

If you insist on a particular sort of approach to resolution, that only works if a particular approach to space and time is adopted, namely, reasoning outwards from an initially established map and prep, then (by fairly simple tautology) other approaches won't come onto your radar.

I think the OP already covered this.

 

[Lanefan]

By you maybe!

No, in general.

There's nothing ever stopping someone declaring a retry of an action, just like there's nothing ever stopping someone declaring (an attempt at) something impossible as an action. There may be many things, however, that cause those declarations to be useless endeavours and-or wastes of time; but that alone does not prevent those declarations from being made either in jest or as serious things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No, in general.

There's nothing ever stopping someone declaring a retry of an action, just like there's nothing ever stopping someone declaring (an attempt at) something impossible as an action. There may be many things, however, that cause those declarations to be useless endeavours and-or wastes of time; but that alone does not prevent those declarations from being made either in jest or as serious things.

Well, again, this is highly dependent on the kind of process of play and overall structure of the game you are playing. Such a statement won't make much sense in the context of Dungeon World for instance, were the idea of 'retrying' something is very unlikely to come up. I mean, sure, "we failed to climb Mt Doom, so lets try flying in on giant eagles" or something like that at a larger story level could certainly happen. You are not going to pick a lock, fail, and get to try again. The game will move on from there. PERHAPS, possibly, depending on what role said lock plays in the fiction, it might come up again at some point.

 

[pemerton]

Well, again, this is highly dependent on the kind of process of play and overall structure of the game you are playing. Such a statement won't make much sense in the context of Dungeon World for instance, were the idea of 'retrying' something is very unlikely to come up. I mean, sure, "we failed to climb Mt Doom, so lets try flying in on giant eagles" or something like that at a larger story level could certainly happen. You are not going to pick a lock, fail, and get to try again. The game will move on from there. PERHAPS, possibly, depending on what role said lock plays in the fiction, it might come up again at some point.

Right. In Torchbearer, this is "fun once".

 

[Lanefan]

Well, again, this is highly dependent on the kind of process of play and overall structure of the game you are playing. Such a statement won't make much sense in the context of Dungeon World for instance, were the idea of 'retrying' something is very unlikely to come up. I mean, sure, "we failed to climb Mt Doom, so lets try flying in on giant eagles" or something like that at a larger story level could certainly happen. You are not going to pick a lock, fail, and get to try again.

My point is that even there, there's nothing at all stopping the player from declaring "I try again", even if the act is already meta-known to be futile.

I ran a dungeon once where the PCs found what was obviously a vault door in some Dwarven ruins they were exploring for other reasons. Equally as obvious was that this door hadn't been opened in ages, and so in hopes that the riches of a Dwarven kingdom might lie behind that door the party Thief set to work. Rules-wise, I have it that your initial roll is your final answer; and between his odds of opening this very difficult lock being slim-to-none in the first place and his initial roll being...well, let's just say rather sub-par...there weren't no way in hell he was going to pick that lock.

In-character, however, he was bound and determined to get through that thing no matter what. He spent all day at it, and eventually one of his approaches was novel enough that I gave him a second roll - which, if memory serves, came up much the same as the first one. He would have spent the next day there as well (and many more days, I'm sure!) except the party dragged him away under protest.

The game will move on from there. PERHAPS, possibly, depending on what role said lock plays in the fiction, it might come up again at some point.

In this case the vault had nothing to do with anything plot-wise, other than being a distraction for greedy Thieves. I don't even remember what if anything was in there.

 

[Fenris-77]

In LotR, it's clear that the Ring of Power can confer many abilities on its wielder, with turning invisible being in some sense the least of them. But only someone of appropriate lineage and stature can master those abilities.

In Dr Strange, much the same is true of artefacts like the Eye of Agomotto.

In neither case is the artefact an imperfect mechanism. It's the wielder who is imperfect, and who has to bring their spiritual and/or moral strength to bear to properly enliven the magical power.

There's no reason this can't be something that is relevant in a FRPG. Although, as @AbdulAlhazred notes, D&D typically has not embraced it.

Not only is there no reason this can't be relevant, but in most ways it makes far more sense than the idea that every magical item should be perfectly understood and usable by anyone who tries.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, in general.

There's nothing ever stopping someone declaring a retry of an action, just like there's nothing ever stopping someone declaring (an attempt at) something impossible as an action. There may be many things, however, that cause those declarations to be useless endeavours and-or wastes of time; but that alone does not prevent those declarations from being made either in jest or as serious things.

In most games I run, whether it’s D&D or something else, I don’t allow second attempts as you’ve described. In D&D, I similarly don't allow multiple players to roll for their characters. The group essentially gets one roll, and if anyone else can help, then they roll with advantage. The result of that roll determines the outcome.

If we’re in a situation where multiple rolls seem like they’d make sense… like being at a locked door for over a day… then I simply grant success without a roll. Or I ask for a roll and use that to determine how much time it takes, rather than success or failure.

Obviously, there are different ways to handle this.

Well, again, this is highly dependent on the kind of process of play and overall structure of the game you are playing. Such a statement won't make much sense in the context of Dungeon World for instance, were the idea of 'retrying' something is very unlikely to come up.

Yup. At least not without something significantly changing in the fiction.

In my home group’s second Stonetop session, our Lightbearer tried to set up a distraction for some crinwin (the setting’s low-level kind of goblin type critter) to allow for a quick getaway past some nests the group had come across in the forest. He tried to use an incantation but rolled poorly, so before he was able to finish, crinwin began pouring from the nests and swarming toward him.

I asked what he wanted to do. He said he wanted to try again. I said there’s a group of eight that are almost to you. Some of them will reach you no matter what, so you’ll take some damage regardless. If the roll goes poorly, then you’ll take more damage and some kind of harm as well. The way damage works in the game, he was facing 1d6+7 hit points at least, and currently had 10 hit points. Death was very likely on the line.

He decided to go for it. Luckily, one of his buddies the Ranger, was able to act and fired a hail of arrows that reduced the number of incoming crinwin, which greatly reduced the damage the Lightbearer faced.

He wound up rolling well, and took only 5 points of damage before his incantation worked and the crinwin were mesmerized by his light.

I almost didn’t allow a second attempt, but given the circumstances and how the danger had been established, I thought this was a good way to handle it.

My point is that even there, there's nothing at all stopping the player from declaring "I try again", even if the act is already meta-known to be futile.

I mean, set the whole notion of meta aside. Just tell the player “it’s futile and the thief knows it is” and then get on with the game.