• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

clearstream

(He, Him)
But in any event I do think scene-based resolution is desirable! Not essential, but everything else being equal a good thing.
It's scratching a different itch, right? I prefer scene-based resolution for some things, while still enjoying action-by-action fights. In 5e, skills frequently work for us as a scene-based resolution mechanic. Its design intent seems mixed to me, e.g. giving per-combat-round distances for jumping and climbing.

Is there any line of argument showing its undesirable to have both?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
It's scratching a different itch, right? I prefer scene-based resolution for some things, while still enjoying action-by-action fights.
Fight! in Burning Wheel is action-by-action but scene-based; likewise extended conflict in the original HeroWars (maybe a bit less so in HeroQuest revised); and so I don't see them as necessarily contrasting.

Is there any line of argument showing its undesirable to have both?
I find that if resolution determines success at a task but doesn't in some clear way establish progress towards a goal for the scene, the overall outcome tends to become hostage to GM fiat.

As I said, Let it Ride with appropriate action declarations and consequences can be an alternative.
 


Thomas Shey

Legend
It's scratching a different itch, right? I prefer scene-based resolution for some things, while still enjoying action-by-action fights. In 5e, skills frequently work for us as a scene-based resolution mechanic. Its design intent seems mixed to me, e.g. giving per-combat-round distances for jumping and climbing.

Is there any line of argument showing its undesirable to have both?

Frankly, my feeling is that there are other elements in some games that I wish had more step-by-step resolution for; one of the things that I think that does is provide more engagement than one-and-done.
 

Fight! in Burning Wheel is action-by-action but scene-based; likewise extended conflict in the original HeroWars (maybe a bit less so in HeroQuest revised); and so I don't see them as necessarily contrasting.

I find that if resolution determines success at a task but doesn't in some clear way establish progress towards a goal for the scene, the overall outcome tends to become hostage to GM fiat.

As I said, Let it Ride with appropriate action declarations and consequences can be an alternative.
Right, THE major reason for Skill Challenges in 4e is exactly this. Contrast a 4e Skill Challenge with a 5e 'exploration pillar play sequence' (5e doesn't even provide terminology for it, though in some cases it might be loosely an 'encounter').

In 4e the GM stages an encounter and casts it as an SC (as opposed to a combat or a puzzle, the other two options). He's going to declare the 'rules' of the SC, which are typically (going by the RC rules) a complexity factor, and primary and secondary skill declarations for mechanics, plus he may note possible obstacles that might receive specific handling, like hard checks or whatever, though that can be done on the fly. This probably all happens in pre-game prep. When the scene is rolled out the fictional state will be established (according to some GMing principles, like 'skip to what is interesting'). Each move will then evolve the state based on the check result for that move, success or failure, until the complexity-determined end state is reached, when the plot of the scene will be fully resolved. If, for example, the challenge is complexity 1, then it will resolve at 3 failures or 4 successes, whichever comes first. This establishes 2 important things, how much the players need to make checks (and thus the valence of each check) plus the existence of an overall success/failure final state of the scene.

In contrast there's simply nothing like this in 5e, no structure at all in fact. The GM simply calls for checks. He can call for 1 check or 100 checks. There's no established principle of overall success or failure, and whether such even exists is something that can be established on the fly (as well as when it comes to pass, if it does). Thus there's no particular forward impetus. Technically a 5e 'scene' can last FOREVER! There is no inherent 'moving on' that is mechanically/structurally/procedurally required. Obviously there may be a lot of cases where success or failure are pretty obvious in the fiction at the end of the scene, but there's a lot of danger that this will be ambiguous or simply unresolved. It is difficult to know what ground the PCs have covered and thus what is 'theirs' in a narrative sense.

Some people felt 'constrained' by the 4e structure, and simply refused to engage much with SCs. Since 4e itself didn't really do away with 'free form checks' (IE action outside of any encounter, what in classic D&D would represent 'town action' or 'exploration mode') you can get away with that, and 4e is thus a pretty 'soft' version of this sort of mechanics. When I rewrote it for my own edification and play I literally wrote a rule that outlaws any dice outside of an encounter! I think the constraint is really a desire for a sort of GM force. Most GM's that focus on traditional or neo-traditional D&D play simply haven't developed a different tool set. The game may be allowed to go one of many ways based on character actions, but there's a greater or lesser degree of 'guiding hand' (possibly a mailed fist now and then!) which really cannot be deployed in good faith in something like an SC. That is, the GM still has control of the narrative to a pretty high degree, as he's bringing in the various plot developments, but they generally have to conform with the stated goal of the player in picking the action (another area where 4e is a bit 'soft', since it doesn't actually mandate that players explicate the results they expect in a narrative sense from taking an action). My 'flavor' of 4e is thus much 'harder', and a lot more different from 5e than regular 4e is (which can feel pretty trad depending on how you GM).
 

clearstream

(He, Him)
Fight! in Burning Wheel is action-by-action but scene-based; likewise extended conflict in the original HeroWars (maybe a bit less so in HeroQuest revised); and so I don't see them as necessarily contrasting.
Maybe contrasting (lit.) but not conflicting?

I find that if resolution determines success at a task but doesn't in some clear way establish progress towards a goal for the scene, the overall outcome tends to become hostage to GM fiat.
I agree with that, and was mulling a related thought: that the main job our rules and principles do for us is to structure our conversation so that we will agree on what counts as plausibly advancing our shared fiction. Everyone at the table is convinced... able to suspend disbelief. That was in line with my thought about game-as-artifact (all the materials and words) as tool, where (by analogy) a better saw helps, but it is the crafts-person who makes the table.

What I find interesting about that analogy is something that is silent in it, but ought to be inferred: that techniques are crucial. That speaks to a matter that has arisen here and elsewhere, which is the aptness of the relationship between tool and technique. Given my techniques, have I chosen the most fitting tools? Given my tools, have I chosen the most fitting techniques? One might see that maybe either can come first, or indeed they can (recursively) be decided together.

I realise I speak elliptically: I hope my meaning is clear?
 

pemerton

Legend
Frankly, my feeling is that there are other elements in some games that I wish had more step-by-step resolution for; one of the things that I think that does is provide more engagement than one-and-done.
I think we need to distinguish one-and-done from scene-based resolution. A 4e D&D skill challenge is scene-based resolution, but not one-and-done. Likewise an extend contest in HeroWars/Quest, or an Action Scene in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I think we need to distinguish one-and-done from scene-based resolution. A 4e D&D skill challenge is scene-based resolution, but not one-and-done. Likewise an extend contest in HeroWars/Quest, or an Action Scene in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.

I think you still need to distinguish between those, though; there's a lot more interaction intrinsic to a Cortex Action Scene than 4e Skill challenges. Partly that's because there are more tools outside of just whatever character attribute is relevant in the former than the latter.
 

I think we need to distinguish one-and-done from scene-based resolution. A 4e D&D skill challenge is scene-based resolution, but not one-and-done. Likewise an extend contest in HeroWars/Quest, or an Action Scene in MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic.

I think you still need to distinguish between those, though; there's a lot more interaction intrinsic to a Cortex Action Scene than 4e Skill challenges. Partly that's because there are more tools outside of just whatever character attribute is relevant in the former than the latter.

I'm not sure I follow this, TS?

In both 4e and Cortex Action Scenes you have:

* Conflict resolution framework.

* Obstacle framing (leading to) >

* Move-space inventorying/orientation > Action Declaration and resource martialing/deployment (in 4e, this might be using Mighty Sprint to run fast and leap and grab a thing and get +5 to your Athletics...or maybe spending a Healing Surge to get a bonus...or maybe a Ritual/Daily/or 1/10 item level Coin to ensure a success...or Legend Lore to sub History for any Knowledge Check...or Steely Persuasion to hint of threat with your weapon in parley to add its Proficiency + Enhancement to a social move....etc etc) > Resolution

* Change in gamestate and change in situation toward Win Con/Loss Con of scene

* Rinse/repeat until scene resolved.



Yes, the martialing of resources and action resolution machinery is different (just like it is in Dogs in the Vineyard), but you fundamentally have the same loop/structure.
 

pemerton

Legend
@Thomas Shey
@Manbearcat

4e skill challenges are players roll all the dice. Depending on how willing the GM is to make hard moves, that might reduce the experienced interaction/dynamics compared to Cortex+ Heroic, which includes the GM's characters in the action sequence.

I think both games suffer a bit from under-explanation in their rulebooks, and so require a bit of practice and experimentation to get the hang of things. In the case of Cortex+ Heroic, for instance, Scene Distinctions are very versatile - and serve as pretty potent soft moves from the GM - but as a GM you have to get the hang of this by looking at the examples in the event books and thinking about some of your own (in my LotR game I've used them for mental states too, to try and mimic Aragorn's doubt at Parth Galen and Amon Hen).

Even as skilled a designer as John Harper can fail to spell things out in full clarity: Agon 2nd ed uses scene-based resolution based on "best of" dice pools. The GM-side dice pool can (in the fiction) correspond to a person or to an epic event (eg a raging storm at sea) and is built from name, and epithet (= descriptor) if applicable. But there's no express discussion of whether geographical/natural features (like storms) can have epithets in the same way that NPCs do.

That last paragraph is a bit tangential to the interactivity thing, but is meant to illustrate an instance of the same phenomenon that I think can explain that perception of skill challenges.
 

Remove ads

Top