The roots of 4e exposed?

[Tony Vargas]

Pretty sure it was clear that he was echoing things he knew were nonsense... but which seem to be "common understanding".

I was trying to hold up a darkly sarcastic mirror to the (miss)use of those terms, yes.

 

[Shasarak]

I think the idea of "being stuck at a closed door" is mostly a feature of GM-driven/railroad play. In "story now" play, the story just is that the PCs didn't go through that door, so some other thing happened.

I dont know if I would agree with DM driven play other then the DM making a "mistake" during his map creation phase and/or expecting the Party to know the Elven word for "Friend" to get through the door perhaps.

I guess in a sandbox game having a door that you can not get through is not really a problem in that there are other things to do.

I don't know what Matt Colville has to say about it, but the structure of a skill challenge serves the same purpose as the structure of combat resolution: it establishes a mechanical finality which means that the outcomes are driven by player actions declarations and their resolution, rather than the GM's opinion as to where the fiction should go next.

I dont really see that the DM picking an arbitary number of successes before the narrative begins has any relation to the outcome excpet by adding an extra level of gamification to the narrative. The Players actions are going to drive the narrative in any case and the DMs opinion is always going to be a factor.

 

[pemerton]

I dont really see that the DM picking an arbitary number of successes before the narrative begins has any relation to the outcome excpet by adding an extra level of gamification to the narrative. The Players actions are going to drive the narrative in any case and the DMs opinion is always going to be a factor.

Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?

 

[pemerton]

In a 'fail forward' paradigm, not being able to open the door gets you (with some added difficulty/consequence) to where getting through the door would have (for instance, while you're unsuccessfully tyring to open the door, an enemy patrol you were hoping to avoid comes through it, and you have to silence them quickly or the jig is up).

This is another example of terminology drift.

"Fail forward" is a technique that was championed by certain indie designers. The 13th Age rulebook (p 42) describes it thus:

A simple but powerful improvement you can make to your game is to redefine failure as “things go wrong” instead of “the PC isn’t good enough.” Ron Edwards, Luke Crane, and other indie RPG designers have championed this idea, and they’re exactly right. You can call it “fail forward” or “no whiffing."​

In Luke Crane's Burning Wheel ruleset, it is elaborated in this way (Gold edition, pp 31-32):

When the dice are rolled and don’t produce enough successes to meet the obstacle, the character fails. What does this mean? It means the [player's] stated intent does not come to pass. . . .

When a test is failed, the GM introduces a complication. . . .

Try not to present flat negative results - "You don’t pick the lock." Strive to introduce complications through failure as much as possible.​

As Luke Crane presents it, the forward in "fail forward" is not that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction. It's that the events of play keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action.

In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on:

A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.​

The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the forward is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.

 

[Tony Vargas]

As Luke Crane presents it, the forward in "fail forward" is not that the PC gets to go forward in the desired direction. It's that the events of play keep going forward, although in some way that is at odds with the player's intent in having declared the action.

In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral. But, sure, more broadly, point taken.

In the 13th Age rulebook, the description of "fail forward" goes on:

A more constructive way to interpret failure is as a near-success or event that happens to carry unwanted consequences or side effects. The character probably still fails to achieve the desired goal, but that’s because something happens on the way to the goal rather than because nothing happens.​

I rather like that one.

But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.

I suppose that, with 5e, the penduulum has swung back to more DM-directed styles...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Mmmhmm, I am not sure I would put it down to willful ignorance. There are definitions of Games, Narrative and Simulation already that do not seems to match 100% with your definitions.



Thank you for taking the time to explain. I can certainly see how some of those features framed in a different context can look the way you say. Certainly looking at some of the encounters that @iserith has created gives me more appreciation of the type of thing that you can do with a well crafted encounter.

From my perspective, the fact that 4e plays so well to this type of set piece encounter means that it would play much better in a railroad type adventure where every encounter is well crafted in advance. The 3 room Delve format of adventures for example rather then a free form Cave of Chaos adventure.

I know that in my group the skill challenge mechanic felt more like using your skills to solve a puzzle rather then using them in a Narrative sense, which is why I would have classified it as a Gameist mechanic rather then a Narrative one. I know that in my experience there was very much a feeling of looking through your Skills to find the best one and then trying to somehow fit that to the situation, very much the opposite of eschewing any kind of predetermined plot.

In any case it is very interesting to try and look at these situations from a different angle.

Yeah, obviously a lot of people fell into that trap with SCs. OTOH if you took it to the other extreme, where the situation was highly dynamic and the choice of skill was a real decision between different approaches, which lead to different fictional positioning going forward, etc. that could be very gamist as well (in [MENTION=60326]heretic888[/MENTION]'s Big Three sense of gamist), allowing for a lot of thought and preparation. DMG2 said a few things about this that should have been in DMG1's presentation, like "SCs should span some significant amount of plot" (liberal paraphrase).

I think that IMHO though COMBAT was much better in non-setpiece style. I didn't plan encounters much at all by the end of my last 4e campaign. I just ran them almost ad-lib. I'd go through what I thought was likely to happen and pick out stat blocks that would probably work in situations I imagined coming up, but often they didn't and I'd just use something else. One thing that did demand was a lot of familiarity with the MMs, but it worked well. As I've said before, they were so highly dynamic that there was little to worry about in terms of a given encounter coming 'unraveled'. Again, the DMGs failed to come up with this approach, which was sad.

 

[Maxperson]

In a linear adventure, where there is no adventure but through the door, /forward/ would be more litteral. But, sure, more broadly, point taken.

That's not precisely true. A linear adventure is one where you have to go from say A to Z. There's nothing that says that B can't also have a B1, B2, and B3, where the door to B3 is locked and where B3 has no exit. The players can get "stuck" at that door, and still go back to B and progress to C. Perhaps C has a C1, C2, C3, and C4 where C4 comes re-enters the line at E, allowing the group to progress linearly to Z, but skip D. It doesn't require one way in and one way out at all times in order to be linear. So yes, there can be adventure outside of through the door in a linear game. Not a whole heck of a lot, and it generally pushes the part forward down the line anyway, but it can and often does exist.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There are definitely degrees of Railroading. Honestly I dont see anything wrong with the DM saying that they have brought this Adventure path and who wants to jump on the Adventure train. There is still plenty of Player agency within the concept to have fun as long as you are not bringing a Paladin to a Pirate fight.

Oh, I'll go further. People are foolish to criticize others for simply wanting to play a certain game. Beyond that there's nothing wrong with a 'railroad'. I think its best to do it explicitly and consciously as a means of play, and not accidentally and covertly, but I'd say the same about any mode of play if I thought about it for a second. I mean, 'player agency' doesn't really factor in, nor any other 'theoretical' consideration when it comes to what you WANT to do. Heck, with the right parameters I'd play in a game where player choice is largely irrelevant.

 

[pemerton]

For me, "linear adventures"/railroading are fun when the characters are fairly vibrant (and so there is fun to be had bringing my character to life as part of play, given the other main bit of play - making choices that shape the fiction - is not really happening) and the GM/module is providing an engaging story that the vibrant characters fit into well.

I've enjoyed CoC played in this style, and also Pendragon - using pregens to ensure vibrant characters that fit into the story. I personally don't like it so much for "rootless wanderer"-type D&D, as the story in that sort of RPGing tends to be pretty thin.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have seen a lot of advice re: Skill Challenges and seen a few videos I think Matt Colvile did one or two. Honestly I am not sure what the set structure brings to the table that makes it better then just playing out the Narrative as it comes.

My feeling is that it affords the players with an assurance that they are getting a result and that the stakes are controllable. In other words, in 3e/5e style play with unstructured use of skills there are no guarantees at all. Any particular effort you make may be enough to accomplish the goal, or it may be an almost meaninglessly insignificant increment towards the goal. It may not even be clear what the goal IS, or that one exists. In 4e you do know, its a complexity 1 SC, it will last between 3 and 6 skill checks and each one will produce an identical increment of mechanical progress.

It also helps the GM by simply showing him when enough is enough. In the unstructured case the GM is left to simply guess, to 'play it by ear', which often leads to inconsistent and sub-optimal results. Instead, as the GM, I know that the complexity 1 challenge is fulfilled at a certain exit condition. I can plan accordingly and not be in doubt that I've done enough, and not too much. Without that structure I could call for an unending series of skill checks, etc.

IME it also helps in terms of planning. Situations become manageable chunks of content that the GM can become familiar with handling.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

By abusive I mean things like re-flavouring your Adamantine sword as being retractable Adamantine claws that can pop out of your hand. The mechanics are obviously exactly the same attack, damage etc but the flavour is very different. And now you get questions like, if everyone else is disarmed then do you get dis "armed" or is it just your luck that you sneak your weapon inside? I could see a lot of DMs freaking out about something like that.

Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.

 

[Shasarak]

Do you think this is true of combat also - that it makes no difference adjudicating combat as hp attrition, or adjudicating combat via a GM's freeform opinion of when the players have done enough to defeat their enemies?

If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.

 

[pemerton]

If I had designed an encounter in a room that had a certain number of Orcs guarding a certain number of Pies and I had determined that the only way to win was for the Party to hit the Orcs X number of times before the Orcs hit them Y number of times then I would agree that does look a lot like a Skill Challenge.

There are two things here - I had determined that the only way and hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times.

The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).

The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the GM must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioning and the broader "logic" of the fiction).

Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:

The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).

<snip>

The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. The ranger was adjacent, so reached out to the bear. The wizard, however, was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it. The sorcerer wanted (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to try and intimidate the bear into submission. I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear.

This example did provoke some discussion when first posted. Here is the main point and reply (I agree with the latter):

in a "fiction-first" system, the players could attempt to avoid a combat because that offered their best chance of success. If you design the challenge of avoiding said combat "To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned", then you undo the value of that choice.

I strongly disagree. Wide variance in difficulty or rewards based on player strategy doesn't preserve the value and meaning of player choice, it destroys that value - essentially, you create a single correct choice.

<snip>

if a diplomatic approach is just as hard as a fight, whether or not the PCs have good CHA, skill trainings, etc means something. The fact that the characters chose a non violent means of resolving the problem even if it wasn't any easier tells us something about their values. If talking is easy, then PCs can get through without strong social skills, and all that their choice tells us about the characters is that they're expedient.

When one choice is obviously superior, going for it is a pretty trivial decision.

 

[Shasarak]

Well, see, with 4e at least, the mechanics are pretty clear. So I would consider this to be a mechanically significant change, and thus a little beyond reflavoring. I mean, you could argue for instance that an ability to hide your sword is on par with many feats, or many magical item properties. It could be a grey area in other games that are less precise, and I'd consider it a fairly minor perk that I might just say "oh, yeah, whatever, OK. You can do that." I mean, it will be useful once or twice, or never maybe, in most games. As a feat it probably wouldn't be considered worth taking by most people.

That is exactly why some DMs are wary of Reflavouring and really all the Player wants to do is get cool Wolverine claws.

 

[pemerton]

A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the players are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.

The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "the adventure" or "the story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.

The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.

Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene-framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​

In other words, skill challenges will suck if the GM isn't establishing exciting, compelling situations that the players want to engage via their PCs.

 

[Shasarak]

There are two things here - I had determined that the only way and hit the Orcs X times before the Orcs hit the PCs Y times.

The latter is, more-or-less, what D&D combat looks like (where X and Y equals hit points divided by damage per hit).

The former is about establishing stakes and modes of approach. There is nothing about a skill challenge as a mode of resolution that says that the GM must, or should, establish the stakes and the modes of approach (although it is likely that the GM will play some role in relation to this simply because, 4e being a fairly traditional game in its allocation of player and GM roles, the GM has a preeminent role as adjudicator of fictional positioning and the broader "logic" of the fiction).

Here's a concrete example, from actual play, that shows that the two things are separate:

The scenario I ran yesterday (from the Eden Odyssesy d20 book called "Wonders Out of Time") called for a Large bear.

I wasn't sure exactly how many 10th level PCs would be facing it at once, and so in prepping I placed a single elite level 13 dire bear, rather than a lower level solo bear (a level 7 or 8 solo would be a rough XP equivalent), because I thought the slightly swingier high level elite would produce a more interesting range of outcomes across a wider range of possible PC party size.

<snip>

As it turns out, the whole party encountered the bear. I didn't want to do any re-statting on the fly, so stuck with the level 13 elite. They players decided that their PCs would try to tame and befriend the bear instead of fighting it. To keep the XP and pacing about the same as I'd planned, I decided to run this as a level 13 complexity 2 skill challenge (6 successes before 3 failures).

<snip>

The ranger and the wizard made Nature checks. The ranger was adjacent, so reached out to the bear. The wizard, however, was at range, giving rise to the question - how does he actually calm the bear? Answer: he used Ghost Sound to make soothing noises and Mage Hand to stroke it. The sorcerer wanted (i) to back away so as not to get slammed in case the bear remained angry, and (ii) to try and intimidate the bear into submission. I (as GM) asked the player how, exactly, the PC was being intimidating while backing up? His answer: he is expending Spark Form (a lightning-based encounter power) to create a show of magical power arcing between his staff and his dagger, that would scare the bear. A successful Intimidate roll confirmed that the light show did indeed tend to subdue rather than enrage the bear.

Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through?

Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?

 

[pemerton]

Now this is very interesting. So you decided to go for 6 successes and you have detailed 3 of them, did the Players know they had to keep going for 3 more successes and how did you change the scenario, if at all, as they were going through?

Did anything happen after the bear was being soothed and subdued? As I understand it the Ranger can not just keep using his Nature skill and if there are any other PCs in the party do they also have to do something to contribute?

To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.

As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.

 

[Shasarak]

A follow-on from the previous post: skill challenges, like similar resolution systems in other (mostly indie) RPGs, work on the premises (1) that the GM is responsible for framing scenes, but (2) that the players are responsible for the choices that will determine how those scenes turn out.

The significance of (2) is that it makes the scene, or encounter, the focus of play. There is no "the adventure" or "the story", because until a scene/encounter is resolved no one (player or GM) knows what the state of the fiction will be, and hence no one knows what the elements of subsequent scenes will be. 4e is very distinctive among editions of D&D in facilitating this sort of play because it doesn't rely on "the adventuring day" or a similar concept to balance asymmetric resource suites, attrition of resources, etc.

I really dont see that 4e does not rely on the adventuring day. Everyone has Daily abilities, they all get a certain number of Healing surges per day with Action points that reset every day and items that also have Daily abilities. At high levels you get abiltiies like: "Once per day, when you die....". 4e is full of the normal DnD resources that need to be carefully hoarded and preserved. It kind of detracts from your main points to be honest.

The significance of (1) is (at least) twofold. First, the players aren't framing scenes. This is different from Gygaxian dungeoncrawling or "sandboxing", which generally assumes that the players (via some form of GM narration) are confronted with a menu of options for their PCs to engage, and choose from that menu.

Second, it puts pressure on the GM to frame interesting scenes! Ron Edwards made some good comments about this back when The Forge was a thing, in reply to a poster who was complaining that his players kept wanting to avoid the scenes he was framing, rather than engage with them:

If, for example, we are playing a game in which I, alone, have full situational [=scene-framing] authority, and if everyone is confident that I will use that authority to get to stuff they want (for example, taking suggestions), then all is well. . . .

It's not the distributed or not-distributed aspect of situational authority you're concerned with, it's your trust at the table, as a group, that your situations in the S[hared] I[maginary] S[pace] are worth anyone's time. Bluntly, you guys ought to work on that.​

In other words, skill challenges will suck if the GM isn't establishing exciting, compelling situations that the players want to engage via their PCs.

If the DM is presenting or "framing" a room in a Gygaxian dungeon, and I must admit that some of those rooms can be very interesting indeed, how is that not meeting your first premise?

And then if the Players engage with that scenario then that must meet your second requirement as well.

Sorry I am still having trouble differentiating exactly what you mean.

 

[Aldarc]

The idea of "fail forward" as "near-success", or "success with complications", has become increasingly common. In this variant usage, the forward is precisely that the PC gets to proceed in the direction the player hoped. Whereas the Luke Crane-type "fail forward" is a technique that is intended to support player-driven RPGing, by substituting dramatic outcomes of player-delcared checks for a GM pre-authored storyline. But the more recent, and increasingly common, "success with complications" notion of "fail forward" is a technique for facilitating GM pre-authored storylines, by ensuring that no "unpassable" obstacles get in their way.

Incidentally, I don't think that "fail forward," "near success," or "success-at-a-cost" are contradictory in play, as one could implement all methods within the same game. "Success-at-a-cost," for example, is often a player-facing choice where the player decides that success is necessary and worth the risk of the cost. "Fail forward" is a GM-facing technique about interpreting the failure of die results. And incorporating both could open a lot of exciting gameplay opportunities.

 

[Shasarak]

To be honest I don't remember any of that - it was a while ago now! I know that the paladin did stuff, as his player was the one who initiated the idea of taming rather than killing the bear. The fighter must have done something too, but I don't remember what that was: I have a vague memory of the bear being hostile to him, and him doing something in response (but I can't remember what, or whether or not it was successful). I do have a memory that, even once tamed, the bear was not friendly to the fighter! Which maybe suggests that whatever the fighter tried failed.

As far as successes and failures are concerned, I don't know what I did in that scenario. It was before I learned [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s technique of using dice, laid out clearly on the table, to represent successes and failures.

Ok, thats alright. I have found that in most scenarios it is hard to fit one or two of the PCs in like maybe the Fighter in this Bear scenario, while the Ranger is in his element. Obviously it depends on your character abilities so maybe the Sorcerer can pull off Intimidate but if the Wizard had to do it then it would be basically an impossible roll.

I was asking about about whether you let the Players know they are in a Skill Challenge with number of successes or not because for me it always seems to make it into a kind of mini game. It feels very much like when Combat starts and the Minis come out and now the real game is on hold while we resolve this seperate part. I have seen a few people suggesting to not let the Players know and others who take the opposite tact.