The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[pemerton]

I object to the claim that games based on SCs lead to the same Rome as games in which the narrative controls the mechanics.

Who is making that claim?

It's not in dispute that 4e is a non-simulationist game, and is therefore different from simulationist games.

Your game is radically different from mine. But in my view you are not accurately capturing the nature of the difference.

I don't know enough about your group to make a guess about how you play. Based on the subordinate nature of the gameworld to the mechanics of the system though I can make an educated guess that the solution to the situation will never be decided by anything not on those sheets.

You'll have to tell me more about what counts as a solution being decided by anthying not on a character sheet. Do you mean White Plume Mountain, and removing the doors to surf down the frictionless corridor? But even this can be affected by character sheets, it they tell us which PC is a better carpenter.

So I'm not really following here. Give me an example of what you mean be a situation where it would be irrelevant that two players have different information on their character sheets.

The difference is in looking down at your character sheet for an answer, and having it look right back at you and say " Don't look at me pal I just work here, its YOUR move."

This isn't helping me. If you're talking about removing doors, higher STR will help. If you're talking about surfing down the corridor, higher DEX will help. What have you got in mind that makes the character sheet irrelevant?

Simple question: Why?

Hussar answered this. I'll add - it's somewhat like random encounters - its using the game rules to inject complications into the situation (I know that random encounters can do other stuff as well, like act as a contraint on the PCs' use of time - but introducing complication is one of the things they do).

AFAICT, neither you nor anyone else has addressed/answered it in any meaningful way. ByronD can agree with everything else you say, but if what you say doesn't answer his objection/argument, he's still not going to agree with you. And he will be right not to.

<snip>

Where the mechanics come before the fictional reality, the narrative must be made to fit the mechanics. Where the fictional reality comes before the mechanics, the mechanics are dropped when they conflict with that fictional reality.

At this level of generality, random encounter checks are "mechanics before reality", because they dictate a change in the situation which results from a dice roll and not the internal logic of the narrative.

If your point is that a good GM will sometimes disregard a random monster check, then I reply that (i) a good GM will use similar discretion in adjudicating a skill challenge (as discussed, for example, in DMG2) and (ii) there are issues about good GMs disregarding or fudging die rolls. Too much generous discretion can undermine the point of random encounters. It can likewise undermine the point of a skill challenge.

The mechanics say the narrative must comply with this.

OK. I don't regard this as equivalent to "the mechanics determine the narrative". The difference between "setting parameters to be complied with" and "determining" is important in a lot of contexts. I think this is one of them.

The reason is that you have to come up with a new narrative direction based on an unexpected narrative twist.

But only because the random encounter mechanics told you so.

And are you suggesting that a skill challenge never arises because of an unexpected narrative twist? I only had to resolve a bear-taming skill challenge because the players decided they didn't want to kill the bear - something I hadn't expected.

I mean changing the story because the mechanics require it. And, yes, my opinion of that is negative.

At this level of generalisation, I don't see how this isn't happening all the time in a typical RPG.

The dragon breathes on the fighter chained to a rock. It looks like the fighter is doomed. But the player successfully rolls the save, and the GM has to narrate how the fighter found a crack in the rock and successfully tucked in behind it. (The example is from the 1st ed DMG.)

I do think there is a parallel to rolling for random encounters and random treasure in other editions.

Agreed. As far as I can tell, here is the difference: in the ideal world of the "fiction first" side, those random rolls wouldn't be required. As BryonD put it, they are simply a way of handling an unexpected twist. They are a subsitute for prep, which is the ideal.

The "mechanics first" side, as it is being labelled, wants the random rolls. Having noticed that some of the best RPGing happens when complications were unexpectedly injected into the situation, we actively embrace mechanics that are designed to produce this sort of result.

This goes back to my posts on the "Not as popular as it could have been" thread - it's part of the logic of 4e not to have a fully fleshed-out setting, because 4e is aimed at a type of play where developing and expanding on situations in the real time of play is a virtue, not a mere necessity arising from the players doing something unexpected.

 

[pawsplay]

i have no real issue with SCs.

What I'm still not seeing, though, is how a SC- which to me seems to involve several rolls- is in any way superior to a single roll against a DC with modifiers for "aid another" and RP.

And it has the disadvantage that the narration can't be segmented when each section has a different mechanical resolution.

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?

Big time.

Joe has a +8 skill bonus. Jean has a +6.

Single check DC 20: Joe 45%, Jean 35%
Two checks, DC 16: Joe 42.25%, Jean 30.25%

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Big time.

Joe has a +8 skill bonus. Jean has a +6.

Single check DC 20: Joe 45%, Jean 35%
Two checks, DC 16: Joe 42.25%, Jean 30.25%

Really? That's what you're going with?

I mean, look, it's pretty clear you've got it out for skill challenges; that's cool, you don't have to like them.

But this is a bad faith, borderline insulting argument to make.

 

[BryonD]

OK. I don't regard this as equivalent to "the mechanics determine the narrative". The difference between "setting parameters to be complied with" and "determining" is important in a lot of contexts. I think this is one of them.

Did I ever say "determine"? If I did it was sloppy.

I wouldn't call it radically off base, but certainly a poor choice of term.
"Determine" means it sets it exactly. I don't *think* I used that word and I know that a reading of what I have explained in detail would make it clear that is not my intended meaning.

In your examples the mechanics always put limitations on the narrative and the narrative never trumps the mechanics. The mechanics are in control. Yes, you can still choose the specifics, but ONLY within the confines that the mechanics allow. The single most important question is: where do we stand on 6/3?

But only because the random encounter mechanics told you so.

Right, and that is a bad mechanic.
I use random encounter tables. But there are major differences between how I use them and the scenario you defined. First, I don't use mechanically defined "Level 10 Dungeons". I might have a lair of an Ogre Lord, who happens to be CR10. But the surroundings are not tied to CR10, they are tied to "what would be in this Ogre Lord's lair?".

Second, you presented your random encounter table in a vacuum. We could go on a whole separate debate on how I think that is just as bad as skill challenges. But I don't let the mechanics of a table control my narrative. If I use a random table for the Ogre Lord's lair, it will be a random table FOR the Ogre Lord's lair.

And are you suggesting that a skill challenge never arises because of an unexpected narrative twist? I only had to resolve a bear-taming skill challenge because the players decided they didn't want to kill the bear - something I hadn't expected.

I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.

At this level of generalisation, I don't see how this isn't happening all the time in a typical RPG.

The dragon breathes on the fighter chained to a rock. It looks like the fighter is doomed. But the player successfully rolls the save, and the GM has to narrate how the fighter found a crack in the rock and successfully tucked in behind it. (The example is from the 1st ed DMG.)

Well, I think the generalization exists mostly because you took the comment away from the broader context of the conversation.

However, I'll ignore that and I'll answer this at two different levels.

First, there are sacrifices in rpgs. At some point the narrative and the mechanics must meet and that is never perfect. Making sacrifices when there is no truly better solution is no justification for giving up where there is no need.

Second, I disagree that the 1e DMG example maps to Skill Challenges.
The fighter's ability to avoid the dragon's breath is part of the narrative character of the fighter. It is part of who he is. It is part of the definition of him as "heroic" individual of some degree of power. 6/3 does not define anything. It is a wholly arbitrary mechanical constraint.

Hit points would have been a better example. Why can a Fighter 10 not die from a giant's smashing club that would turn a commoner to paste? You need to roll with the narrative there. But that narrative is all defined at its root by more narrative. This guy is a "heroic" fighter and can avoid/deflect/absorb/roll with/whatever the giant's attack. The HP mechanic, as clunky and problematic as it is, springs from a narrative goal.

Or, even better yet, you could have thrown my own words back at me for a much better example. I've stated that whenever anyone makes a save vs. Medusa, I describe them as having not seen her. So, right there, I have admitted to making up narrative to fit the results. And, worse yet, I have admitted that avoiding the gaze should probably be a will save, and yet I am too lazy to stop just using Fort. So, busted, I am using a mechanic that makes no sense and making up narrative to cover for it. I plead guilty.

But, I know one thing, I just reformed today. Will saves it is from now on.


But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation. Skill challenges and 6/3 do not. Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics. They have been defended that way. They prevent "I win" buttons. They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included. All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you. And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way. But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative.

 

[Hussar]

Stepping back a second and I realize that this is a debate that has been going on in RPG's forever. The basic argument is, "Mechanics get in the way of role play, therefore, mechanics are not needed." And, you can see this argument all over the place.

People have argued that the inclusion of thief abilities limit role play - before you had to interact with the trap and solve it without using any character abilities, just your own smarts. Then, you threw the thief at the trap. Then, you have things like Take-20 checks to find the trap, no longer do you need any role play at all.

Or, look at combat. People have argued (Hi RC) that the inclusion of more complex combat resolution mechanics leads to less role play. That it's better to have a simpler system that allows the players greater flexibility in describing their actions and then reward that description by DM fiat.

Or look at social interactions. Early D&D had very little in the way of social mechanics. Very bare bones. It wasn't considered needed, you just played out social interactions and relied on the DM to adjudicate.

Now, it's pointing fingers at the SC framework, saying that the mechanics are getting in the way of role play.

And, to some degree the arguements are very true. Having trap resolution mechanics reduces traps from a role play situation to a bare dice roll in many cases. Having more complex combat mechanics does slow down play. Having social mechanics does mean you can simply state, "I bluff the guard, 25 vs insight."

But, and you knew there had to be a but in here somewhere, there is the other side of the coin. Sure, it removes those options of role play, but, it also removes the Mother May I situations that plagued early versions of D&D. It means that the guy who's playing the Cha 6 half orc with no social skills cannot leverage his own personal gift of the gab to simply ignore his character sheet. It means that groups don't wind up in arms races with DM's as they come up with ever lengthening lists of SOP's for dealing with traps.

Gaming story: Way back in the day, my group always experimented with potions IIRC, the 1e rules (or at least our understanding of them) said that if you took a sip of a potion, you had a chance to figure out what it was. So, we would take a sip and then start going down the list - jump up and down, try lifting something, look at our cuts and bruises to see if they healed, that sort of thing.

And we had fun with that. 3e totally does away with that with easy Identify spells. 4e goes a step further and doesn't even bother with Identify but rather just tells the DM to tell the players what they found.

I have to admit, I miss the testing. But, I can totally see why they did it.

In any case, this is not a new discussion at all. It's been framed differently at different times, but, it's essentially the same discussion. Do you need mechanics to resolve X? For some, it's yes, for others no. Where you come down on on the issue is probably largely simply a matter of preference, rather than any objective value statement.

 

[pawsplay]

Really? That's what you're going with?

I mean, look, it's pretty clear you've got it out for skill challenges; that's cool, you don't have to like them.

But this is a bad faith, borderline insulting argument to make.

Math is insulting?

 

[Hussar]

/snip

I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.

This I would totally agree with. And, I believe, that the intent, if not the actual stated point, of 4e would also agree with you. If the players come up with something that totally short circuits a SC, then, roll with it. (no pun intended) After all, one of the primary, fundamental bits of advice in 4e is "Say Yes".

So, if the players manage to brilliantly circumvent your SC? Fantastic. Count the SC as completed and move on. This is totally in keeping with the intent of the rules.

/snip
But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation. Skill challenges and 6/3 do not. Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics. They have been defended that way. They prevent "I win" buttons. They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included. All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you. And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way. But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative.

Why don't they? The SC should absolutely build off of the in game narrative. The PC's want to befriend a bear. The DM judges the difficulty as X (whether that's a static DC roll, a 6/3 SC or "Whatever I think is enough) and you move on from there.

Or, put it another way, why is it so different that the scene is entirely controlled by DM fiat or by arbitrary mechanics? Both are pretty much arbitrary limitations outside the control of the players. I either play out the scene to the DM's satisfaction and pass/fail, or I play out the scene to the mechanics satisfaction as adjudicated by the DM and pass/fail.

I'm not really seeing a huge difference here. The SC simply gives you a framework to work with, not a bound prison that you must not deviate from. Just because you set the SC to 6/3 does not make it carved in stone any more than any other mechanic is carved in stone.

For some, morale should be a mechanic. For others, a narrative element. That doesn't mean that if you have a morale mechanic, you absolutely must abide by it, nor does it mean that the lack of a mechanic result in the DM never allowing random chance to cause the bad guys to run away.

Having a framework does not mean that that framework must be slavishly adhered to, any more than the wealth by level framework that is inherent in 3e must be slavishly adhered to. The game will not break if I decide to end a SC early due to great role play, nor will the game break if I decide to up the difficulty in the middle because of some complication that came up later.

 

[BryonD]

This I would totally agree with. And, I believe, that the intent, if not the actual stated point, of 4e would also agree with you. If the players come up with something that totally short circuits a SC, then, roll with it. (no pun intended) After all, one of the primary, fundamental bits of advice in 4e is "Say Yes".

Good. But not using a SC is not a defense of SCs.

Why don't they? The SC should absolutely build off of the in game narrative. The PC's want to befriend a bear. The DM judges the difficulty as X (whether that's a static DC roll, a 6/3 SC or "Whatever I think is enough) and you move on from there.

But that does not adequately describe SCs.

You could say that befriending a bear will take 6 successful handle animal checks, and three failures would tick it off.

But SCs say that while some actions may not apply, it doesn't tie to the nature of the bear. It just says 6, and (barring "double credit") no fewer and also no more than 6 actions of any type. The details are completely unknown and by the structure of the SC it does not matter.

It is a completely different approach.

I'm not really seeing a huge difference here. The SC simply gives you a framework to work with, not a bound prison that you must not deviate from. Just because you set the SC to 6/3 does not make it carved in stone any more than any other mechanic is carved in stone.

For some, morale should be a mechanic. For others, a narrative element. That doesn't mean that if you have a morale mechanic, you absolutely must abide by it, nor does it mean that the lack of a mechanic result in the DM never allowing random chance to cause the bad guys to run away.

Having a framework does not mean that that framework must be slavishly adhered to, any more than the wealth by level framework that is inherent in 3e must be slavishly adhered to. The game will not break if I decide to end a SC early due to great role play, nor will the game break if I decide to up the difficulty in the middle because of some complication that came up later.

If you are willing to jettison SCs whenever they get in the way of the narrative, then bravo. But that does not make SCs themselves any better.

BTW, you are treading into the old "putting words in my mouth" territory. If you want to discuss, please don't pursue that path. You know I've walked away from conversations with you before over that.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And- PLEASE correct me if I'm wrong- doesn't the multiple-roll mechanic against various DCs possibly involving varying skill levels lead to higher probability of failure than a single roll with a half-ton of modifiers (+ & -)?

Big time.

Joe has a +8 skill bonus. Jean has a +6.

Single check DC 20: Joe 45%, Jean 35%
Two checks, DC 16: Joe 42.25%, Jean 30.25%

Really? That's what you're going with?

I mean, look, it's pretty clear you've got it out for skill challenges; that's cool, you don't have to like them.

But this is a bad faith, borderline insulting argument to make.

That isn't bad faith, that's statistics.

What is being shown is that if Joe has a +8 modifier to his roll, he will succeed at beating a single DC20 check 45% of the time, and Jean at +6 will succeed 35% of the time.

Using Joe's and Jane's same modifiers against a lower DC of 16, but requiring 2 checks, you actually decrease their odds of success.

And if you need 3 checks, you decrease them further.

But so far, the model may be incomplete. SCs typically follow a format of "X successes before Y failures," at least IME. This may jigger the odds a little...but my last stats course was in 2004. And I'm more of a words & visuals than numbers guy.

 

[pawsplay]

But so far, the model may be incomplete. SCs typically follow a format of "X successes before Y failures," at least IME. This may jigger the odds a little...but my last stats course was in 2004. And I'm more of a words & visuals than numbers guy.

Essentially, as long as you have failures left to burn, each step is just a slightly less bad version of what I posted above. As you can see, DCs would have to be very soft not to escalate difficulty sharply even with only a few trials.