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

[Manbearcat]

@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.

Sure. The reality that GMs are marshaling/managing Dice Pools as opposition in Cortex+ and Dogs definitely creates a different dynamic for conflict resolution (related to “interaction” as TS is invoking).

But when you’re trying to delineate “one and done” from “extended conflict/scene based resolution”, I don’t see the need for additional riders like “(more or less) interactive (on a particular axis)” so that you’re separating AW/Blades Clocks and 4e Skill Challenges from Dogs/Cortex+.

Now if you want to dig down further (to investigate where they don’t overlap on the Venn Diagram) so you can dissect what various approaches will bring to the conflict resolution experience…then absolutely. These aren’t the same things.

But at the upper levels of the taxonomy (“one and done” vs “extended scene/conflict resolution”), they’re the same.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Pemerton has part of it, but there's also the issue that 4e skill challenges tend to be, from lack of a better term, set; within use of a given skill you have what you bring to the table (from skill, attribute and other bonuses) and that's it. The only choices you really have (when even that's true) is what skill you apply (and a lot of times that's not an option either). In the middle of an exchange in a lot of Cortex action scenes, things like Assets and SFX can be brought into play (sometimes as trade-offs, sometimes with Plot Point costs). This makes the whole process much more dynamic than a skill challenge.

(I personally am not certain there's actually enough ways that varies even in Cortex, but its clearly closer to what you see in a lot of combat systems, even in non-combat events than what most games do there, or even things like the 4e skill challenge).

 

[Thomas Shey]

But when you’re trying to delineate “one and done” from “extended conflict/scene based resolution”, I don’t see the need for additional riders like “(more or less) interactive (on a particular axis)” so that you’re separating AW/Blades Clocks and 4e Skill Challenges from Dogs/Cortex+.

That's your choice, but it makes an important difference to me, as it makes the actual difference between extended resolution and one-and-done actually meaningful; otherwise the latter is just more die rolls, and other than functioning for some pacing purposes, that doesn't seems particularly different.

 

[Manbearcat]

That's your choice, but it makes an important difference to me, as it makes the actual difference between extended resolution and one-and-done actually meaningful; otherwise the latter is just more die rolls, and other than functioning for some pacing purposes, that doesn't seems particularly different.

I don’t remotely disagree that 4e Skill Challenges are less cognitively dynamic/compelling in terms of marshaling/managing resource suites than Dogs or Cortex+ is.

That’s absolutely true. I mean dynamic/interactive/BETTER is absolutely a descriptor to append to it. I guess I’m just looking at it like “if I’m explaining these things to a new person who hasn’t played games, I’m putting them in the same bin”(particularly if it anchors them because it’s a familiar frame of reference). Later, the actual play will reveal that the former is less dynamic/interactive/WORSE than the latter.

Sane thing goes for design. If I’m just talking at the concept level, I’m binning them together. Then, at the actual build phase, I’m designing more or less interaction/dynamism (and tethering it to theme and fallout and advancement more or less).

————

Oh, I guess the other area that we disagree on is “just more die rolls” for 4e Skill Challenges. I don’t see how one can perceive that. Or, if one perceives that, they should feel similarly about Blades Clocks as conflict resolution (whether it’s a Mission Clock, a Danger Clock, or a social conflict governed by a Tug of War Clock).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don’t remotely disagree that 4e Skill Challenges are less cognitively dynamic/compelling in terms of marshaling/managing resource suites than Dogs or Cortex+ is.

That’s absolutely true. I mean dynamic/interactive/BETTER is absolutely a descriptor to append to it. I guess I’m just looking at it like “if I’m explaining these things to a new person who hasn’t played games, I’m putting them in the same bin”(particularly if it anchors them because it’s a familiar frame of reference). Later, the actual play will reveal that the former is less dynamic/interactive/WORSE than the latter.

I guess I just see a kind of important line-in-the-sand here. I'm not particularly attached to scene based resolution, honestly; its based on a set of priorities that I only intermittently share. I'm more interested in having resolution that involves the same degree of engagement for other important elements of a game than combat (and this is not to be interpreted as me disliking combat; I just want things like research, hacking and construction when they're part of the game to have the same depth to it (and do so without engaging with it being a failure state). Whether its scene or individual attempt resolution is, honestly, mostly irrelevant to me; it just happens to be that a lot of games that do this also lean into scene resolution, but that's not the part I care about (and I don't think there's anything intrinsic to the process I'm talking about that makes that so, its just that a lot of designers who are forging into these happen to be interested in both).

Sane thing goes for design. If I’m just talking at the concept level, I’m binning them together. Then, at the actual build phase, I’m designing more or less interaction/dynamism (and tethering it to theme and fallout and advancement more or less).

————

Oh, I guess the other area that we disagree on is “just more die rolls” for 4e Skill Challenges. I don’t see how one can perceive that. Or, if one perceives that, they should feel similarly about Blades Clocks as conflict resolution (whether it’s a Mission Clock, a Danger Clock, or a social conflict governed by a Tug of War Clock).

I kind of do see most clocks that way; they just serve some other purposes (suspense and setting timing a way that's player-facing) that has some virtues, but I don't see them as fundamentally interesting in the way I'm talking about (which doesn't mean they can't be made interesting, but it requires a lot more mechanical handles involved in process to do so).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. The reality that GMs are marshaling/managing Dice Pools as opposition in Cortex+ and Dogs definitely creates a different dynamic for conflict resolution (related to “interaction” as TS is invoking).

But when you’re trying to delineate “one and done” from “extended conflict/scene based resolution”, I don’t see the need for additional riders like “(more or less) interactive (on a particular axis)” so that you’re separating AW/Blades Clocks and 4e Skill Challenges from Dogs/Cortex+.

Now if you want to dig down further (to investigate where they don’t overlap on the Venn Diagram) so you can dissect what various approaches will bring to the conflict resolution experience…then absolutely. These aren’t the same things.

But at the upper levels of the taxonomy (“one and done” vs “extended scene/conflict resolution”), they’re the same.

That would be a great discussion. I've been noodling about ways to evolve or re-imagine the SC process that my own game has inherited from 4e. I like the way things can produce a sort of flow, with incremental movement towards some final crisis point (that one check that either wins you the challenge or else you go down in ignominy). OTOH reliable delivery is not really guaranteed. The FitD version, for example, seems to be both better and worse in various ways. It seems like, as you are saying, what is required is a deft analysis of agenda vs identified characteristics of different methods and what various permutations will bring to the table.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Pemerton has part of it, but there's also the issue that 4e skill challenges tend to be, from lack of a better term, set; within use of a given skill you have what you bring to the table (from skill, attribute and other bonuses) and that's it. The only choices you really have (when even that's true) is what skill you apply (and a lot of times that's not an option either). In the middle of an exchange in a lot of Cortex action scenes, things like Assets and SFX can be brought into play (sometimes as trade-offs, sometimes with Plot Point costs). This makes the whole process much more dynamic than a skill challenge.

(I personally am not certain there's actually enough ways that varies even in Cortex, but its clearly closer to what you see in a lot of combat systems, even in non-combat events than what most games do there, or even things like the 4e skill challenge).

I don't think you need a lot of WAYS, I think you need a simple and universal language within your system to EXPRESS all those ways. So, in my contemplations of redesign of the 4e-like, I have been looking at all the ways there are still different sorts of resources, and how they could all express a single 'resource model' at some level that produces a simple rule for applying them to your situation (the fiction) to achieve something, or conversely how the GM would apply his to produce setbacks or consequences.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That's your choice, but it makes an important difference to me, as it makes the actual difference between extended resolution and one-and-done actually meaningful; otherwise the latter is just more die rolls, and other than functioning for some pacing purposes, that doesn't seems particularly different.

But see, I don't think one-and-done IS 'distinct from' something like an SC. Take the classic 'infiltrate the orc camp' example that Alexandrian used in his discussion. Suppose that mission is a 4e SC. How is that not EMBODYING his process of one-and-done? You make your Stealth check, its a primary skill of the challenge, so you CAN use it multiple times, but you are never forced to do so. Once you've Stealthed, that can stand in for your stealthiness during the rest of the challenge. Either you blew it and at some point (which the GM shall narrate) fictionally you got spotted, or you were sooooo sneaky and that aspect is dealt with. As the SC rules go, you COULD make further Stealth checks, but they would represent changes in fictional state, since the SC rules require the fiction to advance to a new state with each check. Thus technically you can make a valid SC that is nothing but sneak past guard one, sneak past guard two, etc. but at least it measures a 'success clock', there are a finite number of such checks before the SC resolves. In fact, since the total number of checks is fixed, it isn't really important which skill is employed at any given step, it is just 'what is fictionally appropriate here'. So 'one-and-done' can apply, but it becomes more just a story-telling technique in that case.

The point is, they aren't mutually exclusive different options.

Now, I could imagine a process where the SC rules basically state "you never repeat the same check twice." If you make a Stealth check it stands for ALL future fiction within the scope of that SC, regardless of fiction, etc. That would be a bit different system, but not a lot. I guess there would be a few other options to think about, but it feels like it would be pretty abstract. Like maybe you could do something like, each time a character reaches a fictional decision point there is some process which decides what skill must be deployed. If it hasn't been used before, a check is made, if it HAS been used before, then the tally of successes or failures is simply incremented based on whether it is a 'good stealth day' (IE you succeeded) or a 'bad stealth day' (you failed). Maybe players get some resource to allow them to declare a reroll. That would be an interesting variation... Now you have a kind of 'one-and-done' married to a success/fail tally system (it could also work with clocks).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't think you need a lot of WAYS, I think you need a simple and universal language within your system to EXPRESS all those ways. So, in my contemplations of redesign of the 4e-like, I have been looking at all the ways there are still different sorts of resources, and how they could all express a single 'resource model' at some level that produces a simple rule for applying them to your situation (the fiction) to achieve something, or conversely how the GM would apply his to produce setbacks or consequences.

Maybe you don't need multiple ways, but I think for my desires I want them, as otherwise its a bit too easy for the processes to become just the same with a different coat of paint (there's some irony here, as this is something I've seen direct at effect based power system, where it never felt that way to me, but there were always enough moving parts in that so that it doesn't feel so). That doesn't mean you shouldn't work from the same first-principals to design your different methodologies (the way Marco Chacon set up his build-a-subsystem think in JAGS worked fine as far as I could tell), but I don't think having a single generic process works for me.

 

[Campbell]

This is one area where I definitely seeing things differently from @Manbearcat. I see Apocalypse World, Blades in the Dark, and Sorcerer style snowballing as categorically different from the closed scene resolution of 4e skill challenges, Cortex action scenes, Dune conflict scenes and Dogs in the Vineyard conflicts. Mainly because it (snowballing) serves to prolong and change the nature of the conflict rather than to resolve it. It produces fallout not related to the stakes of the conflict. That's a huge distinction to me.