D&D General Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants

[pemerton]

I am fairly sure I never said it was important to rate RPG players.

Then I'm puzzled by your frequent references to Elo rankings of chess players.

When I've posted that I don't think I understand what point you are trying to make with your posts, I'm not exaggerating or speaking in rhetorical terms. I can't work out what's going on in them.

Once I speculate that running Gygaxian-mode Tomb to the standards of Gygaxian-mode Tomb, cannot be done whilst playing in dramatic-mode, then the underlying question perhaps turns out to be - can we even assess dramatic-mode from the perspective of Gygaxian-mode? As you know, I believe that attempts to do so are likely to run into problems.

EDIT Just in case it isn't clear - I agree with your intuition here, and am attempting to suggest what it might be grounded in.

This is another example of me not grasping your claims.

For me, the claim that ToH might just be run using RQ or RM, but not using HeroQuest, is grounded in my understanding of the different systems. For instance, RQ and RM focus primarily on task resolution; HeroQuest doesn't; and ToH is written assuming task and not conflict/scene resolution. RQ and RM - like classic D&D - both include "gear" and "spells" as discrete packets of change to the fiction, which can be used to "poke and prod" the elements within a scene, obliging the GM to narrate further fiction that reveals information that may help to solve the puzzles (eg what happens if we use a torch, or a firefinger spell, to set the curtains alight?). HeroQuest, perhaps even moreso in its revised form (I know HeroWars and HeroQuest revised but don't have a complete sense of where HeroQuest unrevised sits in the evolution of the system), doesn't include such things and hence doesn't lend itself to that sort of approach to engaging with the fiction and hence generating information.

Given that this is, in fact, what my intuition is grounded in, I don't follow your suggestion as to what my intuition might be grounded in. And I also don't really follow what it would mean to assess dramatic mode from the perspective of Gygaxian mode, or vice versa? As far as I understand, the modes are approaches to playing RPGs - so I'm not really sure what it means to treat them as frameworks of assessment.

Is this an example? I'm quite comfortable to say that, just as I don't think HeroQuest can be used to run ToH, nor can Prince Valiant. The suggestion is just bonkers. And I'm quite comfortable to say that one reason for this is that playing Prince Valiant just isn't an exercise in manifesting player skill in the way that ToH is premised on. Nothing could be more at odds with the whole tenor of Prince Valiant as a RPG then for a player to narrate his/her PC's passage down a corridor poking things with a 10' pole.

If that's an example of assessing "dramatic mode" from the perspective of "Gygaxian mode" than I'm very confident that it can be done, because I just did it! The way I would describe it, though, is this: there are certain processes of play - techniques, principles, expectations - that are central to Gygaxian play but are largely absent in the play of Prince Valiant. The way that Prince Valiant invites players to make choices about what their PCs do, and to think about the shared fiction, is almost completely different.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Thing is, even if the vast majority of high-optimization players don't play Pun Pun, they do play things like Spell-to-Power Erudites, Planar Shepherd Druids, Sublime Chord gishes, Ruby Knight Windicators, etc. Heck, even just Artificer or Archivist can be incredibly potent in the hands of a skilled optimizer with access to all legal books (and, ideally, Dragon mag content as well, but most DMs forbid that). And anybody who plays a Monk or Fighter who primarily focuses on flavor, even if they heed basic character-building tips, won't be able to keep up.

One of the things I appreciated about 4e was that, while there were distinctly some charop choices available, they tended to be less likely to produce a situation where a player who just wasn't doing it was going to make choices that left their character dysfunctional; they might not look impressive compared to the characters who had all the bolts carefully tightened down, but they'd still work. It was sometimes shockingly easy to trip into the opposite with 3e.

 

[Thomas Shey]

One reason I personally don't enjoy "skilled play" RPGing is because if the players player well, then none of what is promised in the set-up (eg in this case, despite all the best efforts in the world, one of the PCs having the robes fall open revealing the holy symbol of St Cuthbert underneath it) actually comes to pass. So we have the promise of epic fantasy in the set up, but the reality of play only realises that promise if the players make a mistake.

Well, it doesn't help that you'll often see players who indicate they want a particular experience, but in the field fight against it occurring. There are a number of reasons for this but they're pretty off-topic for this thread.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I found this very true. The term diplomancy was coined from 3rd ed. The way the skill system worked, it was possible to get crazy bonuses that allowed you to simply force the outcome of social encounters that you wanted (were the rules played sincerely).

I was actually thinking of 3e Diplomacy, though with other skills it was more the upper ends of the rolls didn't have quite the qualitative gust it did. The only reason you didn't see them more was that, as with a lot of D&D stuff and particularly 3e, most skills had spells that made them largely irrelevant after a certain point.

 

[clearstream]

Nothing could be more at odds with the whole tenor of Prince Valiant as a RPG then for a player to narrate his/her PC's passage down a corridor poking things with a 10' pole.

You are restating here the same thing that I am saying. Asked whether I believe ToH can be played in Gygaxian-mode using rules intended to be played - and in fact played - in dramatic-mode, I answered that I do not.

What I suggested might be possible is to use the ToH map+key and play it in dramatic-mode. In which case we will not be narrating PC's passage down a corridor poking things with a 10' pole. That is not what will be happening at our table. We will be narrating some dramatised action using the ToH material, which I believe is possible.

But that will warp the ToH to be an entirely different experience from the intent of its design. So I am suggesting that when it is warped that way, it stops being ToH qua ToH. It becomes something else.

If that's an example of assessing "dramatic mode" from the perspective of "Gygaxian mode" than I'm very confident that it can be done, because I just did it! The way I would describe it, though, is this: there are certain processes of play - techniques, principles, expectations - that are central to Gygaxian play but are largely absent in the play of Prince Valiant. The way that Prince Valiant invites players to make choices about what their PCs do, and to think about the shared fiction, is almost completely different.

Yes, it is hard to get the concept right. Assess is the wrong word. Let's put it this way

1. I take ToH map+key
2. I use HQ to run a circus attraction House of Horrors style dramatic-mode session using that ToH map+key
3. My players don't walk down corridors with 10' poles because that's not the sort of thing that we do in dramatic-mode
4. So it is not right to suppose that it will make sense to do Gygaxian things in dramatic-mode

By assess, I mean something like - make sense of. You used the word "bonkers". I am saying that it ceases to be coherent to try to do Gygaxian things in dramatic-mode. The primary assessment we can make of them is they are bonkers.


EDIT On one run through ToH we eschewed the entries and melted our way in with high-level magic. I have read about runs where players used tribe-of-goblins approaches. These sorts of subversive approaches can be run in dramatic-mode.

 

[clearstream]

I was actually thinking of 3e Diplomacy, though with other skills it was more the upper ends of the rolls didn't have quite the qualitative gust it did. The only reason you didn't see them more was that, as with a lot of D&D stuff and particularly 3e, most skills had spells that made them largely irrelevant after a certain point.

This is a digression as I agree with what you are saying, but there are some edge cases. Not being a spell can be good for diplomancy in anti-magic fields or where targets are protected against magic. And then when your skill is stupidly high enough, you can rush the check to use it in combat time.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It does feel like the translation into specificity could use work. What I mean is that the basic arrangement works well as a foundation -

• ability modifier
• + proficiency bonus (if skilled)
• + proficiency bonus (if expert)
• * advantage (situationally)

but could use more framing to bridge both that specificity - which I see as players skillfully describing character actions - and time and cost management. Other opportunities for development might include -

• passive scores (this is useful, but needs a design rev)
• group checks (broken as printed)
• collaboration or help (clunky and sometimes irrelevant in current form)
• process and result support for hazards
• complex skill checks (4e failed to solve this, but showed some options)
• common situations (much as you suggest) and more detail on time and cost for these
• nuanced outcomes that can propel the emergent narrative (success at a cost, degrees of failure, etc)
• contests
• perhaps some sort of exertion resource (fatigue, hold, whatever)

Yes, the out-of-combat is as important as combat, and needs at least the same rules weight.


The aim would certainly not be to replace the narrative improvisation and agreement, but support it more robustly. The current skills system nearly does that. If it were better featured, the game would be far stronger in play. The fact is that there are many common situations that come up again and again, and that the rules handle clunkily.

An example is crossing a pit, current rules offers quite a bit of possible support

• jump - if the intent is Strength-feet is automatic, and say DC 2/foot past that, then this nearly works and clicks well with Step of the Wind and Otherworldly Leap/jump spell
• climb - athletics (what on Earth is acrobatics for?!), but
  • what if players want to belay (sleight of hand per XGE?)
  • what if someone falls and someone else wants to react? how is particular time even dealt with out of combat? feather fall suggests it is possible

The mechanics framework is nearly there - and note that I'm not at all advocating removal of detailed actions in the fiction - it just needs to be taken on as a central design objective, not a concession to community voices.

Meh, you won't make 5e into a narrative focus game. I mean, you could build a game which was more-or-less similar to 5e in terms of some of its mechanics that would do so, but 5e itself is fundamentally antithetical to narrative focus play. It has the wrong process model. The thing is, if you are reworking that, you might as well simply use mechanics that are focused on generating Story Now. Instead of the mechanics trying to focus on telling you if the character 'succeeded' or not (without even providing a usable definition of what that means) you want mechanics which focus on where the story is going. That means deciding who's version of 'what happened next' came to pass in the fiction. It is a different sort of mechanic with different needs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is a digression as I agree with what you are saying, but there are some edge cases. Not being a spell can be good for diplomancy in anti-magic fields or where targets are protected against magic. And then when your skill is stupidly high enough, you can rush the check to use it in combat time.

The problem was you were having to do a serious investment in Intimidate to do what someone else could do with Quickened Fear. It was a really hard sell unless you wrapped other parts of the character around it to make it worthwhile, and then the moment you ran into something immune to fear effects you could hear the sad trombone playing in the distance.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It does feel like the translation into specificity could use work. What I mean is that the basic arrangement works well as a foundation -

• ability modifier
• + proficiency bonus (if skilled)
• + proficiency bonus (if expert)
• * advantage (situationally)

but could use more framing to bridge both that specificity - which I see as players skillfully describing character actions - and time and cost management. Other opportunities for development might include -

• passive scores (this is useful, but needs a design rev)
• group checks (broken as printed)
• collaboration or help (clunky and sometimes irrelevant in current form)
• process and result support for hazards
• complex skill checks (4e failed to solve this, but showed some options)
• common situations (much as you suggest) and more detail on time and cost for these
• nuanced outcomes that can propel the emergent narrative (success at a cost, degrees of failure, etc)
• contests
• perhaps some sort of exertion resource (fatigue, hold, whatever)

Yes, the out-of-combat is as important as combat, and needs at least the same rules weight.


The aim would certainly not be to replace the narrative improvisation and agreement, but support it more robustly. The current skills system nearly does that. If it were better featured, the game would be far stronger in play. The fact is that there are many common situations that come up again and again, and that the rules handle clunkily.

An example is crossing a pit, current rules offers quite a bit of possible support

• jump - if the intent is Strength-feet is automatic, and say DC 2/foot past that, then this nearly works and clicks well with Step of the Wind and Otherworldly Leap/jump spell
• climb - athletics (what on Earth is acrobatics for?!), but
  • what if players want to belay (sleight of hand per XGE?)
  • what if someone falls and someone else wants to react? how is particular time even dealt with out of combat? feather fall suggests it is possible

The mechanics framework is nearly there - and note that I'm not at all advocating removal of detailed actions in the fiction - it just needs to be taken on as a central design objective, not a concession to community voices.

Meh, you won't make 5e into a narrative focus game. I mean, you could build a game which was more-or-less similar to 5e in terms of some of its mechanics that would do so, but 5e itself is fundamentally antithetical to narrative focus play. It has the wrong process model. The thing is, if you are reworking that, you might as well simply use mechanics that are focused on generating Story Now. Instead of the mechanics trying to focus on telling you if the character 'succeeded' or not (without even providing a usable definition of what that means) you want mechanics which focus on where the story is going. That means deciding who's version of 'what happened next' came to pass in the fiction. It is a different sort of mechanic with different needs.

 

[clearstream]

Then I'm puzzled by your frequent references to Elo rankings of chess players.

When I've posted that I don't think I understand what point you are trying to make with your posts, I'm not exaggerating or speaking in rhetorical terms. I can't work out what's going on in them.

The matter of importance, and the matter of sincerely looking at gaming skill-constructs and thinking about how they might apply to RPG, are distinct. I do not believe it is "important" to rate players in RPG. I'm not trying to sell that to anyone.

I believe that there is preexisting work on skill in games that could be applied to RPG. Seeing as we were talking about skill, I imagined that might be salient here. Some posters were able to explain in a non-confrontational way the problem that introducing that highly technical discussion into this thread created for them, and I respected that.

I believe that we can probably do quite a good job of hypothesizing what the factors of skill in RPG-modes may be. I suspect that there is some portability (i.e., some factors apply across multiple modes). There are technical weaknesses with our approach, which I do not believe are worth rehashing here.