Manbearcat
Legend
In another thread recently I was discussing the amalgamation of quasi-process sim task resolution and abstract conflict resolution that is D&D 5e's system for noncombat action resolution. I was talking about a few different tropes, and one of them was the age-old one of the wilderness warrior on the trail of this or that creature. So I figured I'd run through some of D&D's history, briefly (lol?) examine the various ways this has been handled, check out 5e again, and see how people are handling it in this edition. Let's get on with it.
AD&D 1e
As was a heaping portion of the system, Tracking here is abstract conflict resolution, specifically for the Ranger class. Features:
* Principally used for outdoors/winderness but could be accomplished indoors/underground if a few stipulations are met.
* The Ranger had a percentage chance to succeed which was modified by terrain and other conditions which are codified/specified by the ruleset.
* No retry stipulation. Check resolves conflict.
Unearthed Arcana (clarifications or adjustments in rules for Ranger tracking)
* A bit of a move toward process-sim with adjustement to movement rate while tracking based on conditions (light, etc).
* If the tracking conditions worsen, and the current check now exceeds the adjusted percentile threshold, a new check must be made against the newly adjusted percentile threshold.
* Breaks out tracking into two areas, requiring separate checks for (1) successful identification of tracks (several bits of knowledge can come with this) and (2) successful tracking of prey.
Wilderness Survival Guide
* Advent of the Weapon/Nonweapon Proficiency system opens up tracking to all characters. Very granular system with (a) narrow proficiency and (b) purchasable skills for breadth or focus for aptitude.
* Unlike the rest of the NWP proficiency system (which uses the ability check system ported into AD&D 2e), Tracking uses UA rules for (Ranger) but purchased proficiency is at 55 % of a Ranger's competency.
AD&D 2e
Uses the WSG NWP system above and takes a further step away from conflict resolution and toward quasi-process sim task resolution.
* Eschews the percentile-based tracking of WSG and goes with the ability score system.
* Non-rangers who have this proficiency suffer a - 6 penalty (which can be mitigated by further purchase into the skill).
* Carries prior edition stipulations for indoor/underground tracking but also includes stipulations for outdoor/wilderness tracking.
* Table with lots of codified/specified modifiers (as before).
* As in UA, adjustement to movement rate while tracking based on conditions (light, etc).
* However, the biggest move toward process-sim is the requirement for multiple checks (b and c below) based off of several things:
a) Conditions worsen decreasing chance to track (as in UA)
b) Second track crosses the first
c) Party must halt tracking effort and pick up later (eg due to making camp, fighting, etc)
* One other move toward process-sim is, upon initial failure, 1 retry is allowed after searching the area for signs for 1 hour.
D&D 3.x
Biiiiiiiiiig time move to process-sim-based task resolution and away from conflict resolution.
* Granular system with (a) narrow proficiency and (b) purchasable skills for breadth or focus for aptitude.
* Anyone can use Survival to track at a DC 10 or less, but only character with the Track feat can track at a DC 11+.
* Shift to process-sim with the objective DCs on the (very simple and user friendly) Track DC table but with DC modified by very granular table of prevailing conditions/surface etc.
* Staged modes of movement rate which adjust Track DC accordingly.
* Big shift to process-sim is the task resolution based on spatial concerns. 1 Survival check is required each time you track for 1 mile or the conditions worsen (whichever comes first).
* Final big shift to process-sim is the retry rules. If you fail a Survival check, you can spam retry after 1 hour (outdoors) or 10 minutes (indoors) of searching.
D&D 4e
Huge change away from 3.x process-sim task resolution and back toward conflict resolution. It has a few methods of conflict resolution which include Group Checks and its very generic action resolution system which is akin to 1e without the tie-ins to other sub-systems. However, the primary form (outlined below) of noncombat conflict resolution is the Skill Challenge so I'll focus on that (as that is the spirit and ethos of 4e):
* Very broad skills allowing for broad competency with each PC build investment. Further, going from broad competency to outright excellence is a minimal investment, especially with the range of automatic PC build components.
* Skill Challenge as noncombat conflict resolution:
a) This is scene-based, narrativist (Story Now) system focused on fictional stakes, player goals, dramatic momentum (like the combat system), and the mechanical framework establishes a hard (not subject to DM fiat/veto/railroading) campaign win/loss based on the resolution.
b) The resolution of each action declaration is based on intent relative to the established stakes/goals, the prior fiction, and the mechanical resolution.
c) Subjective (drama-based) DCs versus Objective (world/process-based) DCs.
Dungeon World
This is a narrativist (Story Now) conflict resolution system akin to the 4e Skill Challenge (see above) but accrues its dramatic momentum and closes out conflicts just a little bit differently from a system standpoint.
* The system is governed by a specific, transparent GMing agenda, the basic resolution mechanics, fiction-first Basic Moves + PC Moves and GM responses/techniques which are underwritten by that broad agenda and specific principles.
* The basic resolution mechanic is roll 2d6 + (small, bounded modifier typically between - 1 and + 2 but sometimes up to + 3 and very rarely + 4). The outcomes are (generically):
a) 10 + success on what you intended to do
b) 7-9 success with usually some form of interesting complication (some kind of hard choice, some kind of cost, or impending trouble)
c) 6- mark 1 xp and something interesting and dangerous happens to fill your life with adventure/make it worse (for the PC...better for the player because its more fun!).
* The Ranger move Hunt and Track is triggered by the fiction of when you follow a trail of clues left behind by passing creatures. The outcome of a 10+ and 7-9 is stipulated in the move, thus binding the GM to the outcome. The outcomes being, the Ranger:
7-9) follows the creature’s trail until there’s a significant change in its direction or mode of travel
and
10+) either gains a useful bit of information about their quarry (the GM will tell you what) or determines what caused the trail to end. That last bit is up to the GM, but proper GMing means looking to the transparent stipulations of the basic resolution mechanics and the GMing agenda/principles and to determine best practices here:
* Follow the rules
* Make a move that follows from the fiction
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happens
* Be a fan of the characters
* Think dangerous
* Play snowballs from this formula.
13th Age
Very, very lean narrative-based noncombat conflict resolution system.
* Subjective (drama-based and follows the characters) DCs
* Players apply a narrative background (modifier) after telling a story about their characters and why it should apply to the roll.
* Specific GMing guidance on play procedures including:
a) Players should telegraph intent and resolution should be based on intent:stakes relationship (rather than casual logic and process-sim).
b) GMs are encouraged to use the indie technique of Fail-Forward or "no whiffing".
* Like 4e and Dungeon World, you're only rolling dice if "something interesting will happen" as a result of the effort.
* Unfortunately, the firm establishment of campaign wins/losses (eg when should Fail Forward not apply and a campaign loss should accrue and how) and how the system expects this to snowball is not fully canvassed as a natural outcome of play procedures as the conflict resolution mechanics are pretty vanilla and the advice on this specific (and very important) area is a bit nebulous.
Consequently, the play procedures leading to the dramatic momentum and then actual outcome of any particular tracking conflict is sort of up in the air. Not a big fan of this to be honest.
5e
This is where you guys come in. Insofar as I'm able to parse it, 5e is a sort of mish-mash of quasi-process sim mechanics married to conflict resolution. Here is what I'm seeing. FYI, I'm looking at the Basic Rules PDF and I've briefly looked at the PHB/DMG:
* Directly ports 4e's Group Checks as conflict resolution.
* Ability check system a la AD&D 2e and WSH NWP system (although inverted). Advantage/Disadvantage as a core mechanic to do some of the heavy lifting of managing situational difficulty/advantage (with DC establishment being the other).
* Objective, world-based DCs that the GM is supposed to derive from a little help from the DMG, their own sense of the difficulty, and the task resolution DC table. Obviously, this is very process-sim with some heavy GM involvement in the setting of the DC (which carries a lot of weight given the bounded math of the system, the profiency system leading to swingy competency, and how DCs can inflate severely relative to PC assets). This heavy involvement has the attendant consequence of making GM influence on the resolution of any given action quite large (and hopefully declaration as hopefully the player has an idea of a DC before they declare an action).
* Background Skill system somewhere between the broadness of 4e and the granular nature of 3.x. Definitely much closer to the 4e spectrum than 3.x.
* Proficiency system + classes pushing scores toward archetype + objective world-based DCs really pushes play away from broad competency toward very swingy niche competency/excellence.
* The GM is supposed to pick the ability score that applies and also vet the Background skill bonus to modify the check.
* Tracking appears to be the old 3.x standy of Survival.
* The entries in the Adventuring section (Time, Movement, Vision and Light) has a hefty role to play in adjudication here. Specifically, there is GM guidance on ruling in a process-sim manner on these things based on how these things impact task difficulty:
a) how quickly you move and can move and the impact of travel modes
b) moving quickly makes perception more difficult (possibly imposing disadvantage...or raising the DC?)
c) dim light and lightly obscured areas make perception difficult (possibly imposing disadvantage on perception checks).
* However, the Survival entry itself just talks about tracking creatures. There are no stipulations on when you can track and there is nothing citing dramatic concerns on process concerns for when any supplementary checks are required, or if they are required. Nothing about distance. Nothing about a worsening of a conditions. It just appears to be straight conflict resolution mechanics a la 13th Age.
* Further, the rule language governing noncombat action resolution (that are not Contests) states there are two possible outcomes:
a) The declared action is a success (eg the PC tracks down their quarry)
or
b) there is no progress toward the objective - no indication that any kind of fallout should occur here...but it also doesn't say that the conflict is closed out and a campaign loss accrues (and what that entails).
or
c) there is no progress toward the objective or progress but combined with a setback as determined by the GM - akin to DW's 7-9 roll (...perhaps a Con check and the Exhaustion Rules are to to be deployed here or a random encounter with a monster - I don't believe there are codified hazards in 5e).
C above is "Fail Forward" without doing like Heinsoo and Tweet in 13th Age and canvassing the technique transparently and giving a hat-tip to its indie origins and originators.
Alright. My TL;DR takeaway:
Unlike 13th Age, (more like AD&D 2e and 3.x) most of the play procedures and rules components stress and push play toward process simulation and very heavy GM involvement and influence on any given action declaration, any given mechanical resolution of that action declaration, and any given fallout from the prior two.
However, like 13th Age and 1e, certain parts of the rules text and mechanics (which interface directly with the above) support noncombat conflict resolution. What's more, the rules text directly invokes Fail Forward (without saying it) meaning that GMing practices should (sometimes? often?) lead to "progress with setbacks" but don't establish the campaign loss condition. And, like 13th Age, I'm not sure what objective play procedures or GMing agenda/principles formally cement a campaign loss (and what that might mean...because the noncombat action resolution system is process-based rather than stakes-based), either generally, or specifically when tracking.
So, as far as I can tell, Tracking in 5e is kind of a mash-up of AD&D 2e, 3.x, and 13th Age. I think that might be the case for much of noncombat action resolution, but it definitely looks like that is the case for Tracking.
Any thoughts on Tracking mechanics in 5e (their legacy or procedures in play)?
AD&D 1e
As was a heaping portion of the system, Tracking here is abstract conflict resolution, specifically for the Ranger class. Features:
* Principally used for outdoors/winderness but could be accomplished indoors/underground if a few stipulations are met.
* The Ranger had a percentage chance to succeed which was modified by terrain and other conditions which are codified/specified by the ruleset.
* No retry stipulation. Check resolves conflict.
Unearthed Arcana (clarifications or adjustments in rules for Ranger tracking)
* A bit of a move toward process-sim with adjustement to movement rate while tracking based on conditions (light, etc).
* If the tracking conditions worsen, and the current check now exceeds the adjusted percentile threshold, a new check must be made against the newly adjusted percentile threshold.
* Breaks out tracking into two areas, requiring separate checks for (1) successful identification of tracks (several bits of knowledge can come with this) and (2) successful tracking of prey.
Wilderness Survival Guide
* Advent of the Weapon/Nonweapon Proficiency system opens up tracking to all characters. Very granular system with (a) narrow proficiency and (b) purchasable skills for breadth or focus for aptitude.
* Unlike the rest of the NWP proficiency system (which uses the ability check system ported into AD&D 2e), Tracking uses UA rules for (Ranger) but purchased proficiency is at 55 % of a Ranger's competency.
AD&D 2e
Uses the WSG NWP system above and takes a further step away from conflict resolution and toward quasi-process sim task resolution.
* Eschews the percentile-based tracking of WSG and goes with the ability score system.
* Non-rangers who have this proficiency suffer a - 6 penalty (which can be mitigated by further purchase into the skill).
* Carries prior edition stipulations for indoor/underground tracking but also includes stipulations for outdoor/wilderness tracking.
* Table with lots of codified/specified modifiers (as before).
* As in UA, adjustement to movement rate while tracking based on conditions (light, etc).
* However, the biggest move toward process-sim is the requirement for multiple checks (b and c below) based off of several things:
a) Conditions worsen decreasing chance to track (as in UA)
b) Second track crosses the first
c) Party must halt tracking effort and pick up later (eg due to making camp, fighting, etc)
* One other move toward process-sim is, upon initial failure, 1 retry is allowed after searching the area for signs for 1 hour.
D&D 3.x
Biiiiiiiiiig time move to process-sim-based task resolution and away from conflict resolution.
* Granular system with (a) narrow proficiency and (b) purchasable skills for breadth or focus for aptitude.
* Anyone can use Survival to track at a DC 10 or less, but only character with the Track feat can track at a DC 11+.
* Shift to process-sim with the objective DCs on the (very simple and user friendly) Track DC table but with DC modified by very granular table of prevailing conditions/surface etc.
* Staged modes of movement rate which adjust Track DC accordingly.
* Big shift to process-sim is the task resolution based on spatial concerns. 1 Survival check is required each time you track for 1 mile or the conditions worsen (whichever comes first).
* Final big shift to process-sim is the retry rules. If you fail a Survival check, you can spam retry after 1 hour (outdoors) or 10 minutes (indoors) of searching.
D&D 4e
Huge change away from 3.x process-sim task resolution and back toward conflict resolution. It has a few methods of conflict resolution which include Group Checks and its very generic action resolution system which is akin to 1e without the tie-ins to other sub-systems. However, the primary form (outlined below) of noncombat conflict resolution is the Skill Challenge so I'll focus on that (as that is the spirit and ethos of 4e):
* Very broad skills allowing for broad competency with each PC build investment. Further, going from broad competency to outright excellence is a minimal investment, especially with the range of automatic PC build components.
* Skill Challenge as noncombat conflict resolution:
a) This is scene-based, narrativist (Story Now) system focused on fictional stakes, player goals, dramatic momentum (like the combat system), and the mechanical framework establishes a hard (not subject to DM fiat/veto/railroading) campaign win/loss based on the resolution.
b) The resolution of each action declaration is based on intent relative to the established stakes/goals, the prior fiction, and the mechanical resolution.
c) Subjective (drama-based) DCs versus Objective (world/process-based) DCs.
Dungeon World
This is a narrativist (Story Now) conflict resolution system akin to the 4e Skill Challenge (see above) but accrues its dramatic momentum and closes out conflicts just a little bit differently from a system standpoint.
* The system is governed by a specific, transparent GMing agenda, the basic resolution mechanics, fiction-first Basic Moves + PC Moves and GM responses/techniques which are underwritten by that broad agenda and specific principles.
* The basic resolution mechanic is roll 2d6 + (small, bounded modifier typically between - 1 and + 2 but sometimes up to + 3 and very rarely + 4). The outcomes are (generically):
a) 10 + success on what you intended to do
b) 7-9 success with usually some form of interesting complication (some kind of hard choice, some kind of cost, or impending trouble)
c) 6- mark 1 xp and something interesting and dangerous happens to fill your life with adventure/make it worse (for the PC...better for the player because its more fun!).
* The Ranger move Hunt and Track is triggered by the fiction of when you follow a trail of clues left behind by passing creatures. The outcome of a 10+ and 7-9 is stipulated in the move, thus binding the GM to the outcome. The outcomes being, the Ranger:
7-9) follows the creature’s trail until there’s a significant change in its direction or mode of travel
and
10+) either gains a useful bit of information about their quarry (the GM will tell you what) or determines what caused the trail to end. That last bit is up to the GM, but proper GMing means looking to the transparent stipulations of the basic resolution mechanics and the GMing agenda/principles and to determine best practices here:
* Follow the rules
* Make a move that follows from the fiction
* Portray a fantastic world
* Fill the characters’ lives with adventure
* Play to find out what happens
* Be a fan of the characters
* Think dangerous
* Play snowballs from this formula.
13th Age
Very, very lean narrative-based noncombat conflict resolution system.
* Subjective (drama-based and follows the characters) DCs
* Players apply a narrative background (modifier) after telling a story about their characters and why it should apply to the roll.
* Specific GMing guidance on play procedures including:
a) Players should telegraph intent and resolution should be based on intent:stakes relationship (rather than casual logic and process-sim).
b) GMs are encouraged to use the indie technique of Fail-Forward or "no whiffing".
* Like 4e and Dungeon World, you're only rolling dice if "something interesting will happen" as a result of the effort.
* Unfortunately, the firm establishment of campaign wins/losses (eg when should Fail Forward not apply and a campaign loss should accrue and how) and how the system expects this to snowball is not fully canvassed as a natural outcome of play procedures as the conflict resolution mechanics are pretty vanilla and the advice on this specific (and very important) area is a bit nebulous.
Consequently, the play procedures leading to the dramatic momentum and then actual outcome of any particular tracking conflict is sort of up in the air. Not a big fan of this to be honest.
5e
This is where you guys come in. Insofar as I'm able to parse it, 5e is a sort of mish-mash of quasi-process sim mechanics married to conflict resolution. Here is what I'm seeing. FYI, I'm looking at the Basic Rules PDF and I've briefly looked at the PHB/DMG:
* Directly ports 4e's Group Checks as conflict resolution.
* Ability check system a la AD&D 2e and WSH NWP system (although inverted). Advantage/Disadvantage as a core mechanic to do some of the heavy lifting of managing situational difficulty/advantage (with DC establishment being the other).
* Objective, world-based DCs that the GM is supposed to derive from a little help from the DMG, their own sense of the difficulty, and the task resolution DC table. Obviously, this is very process-sim with some heavy GM involvement in the setting of the DC (which carries a lot of weight given the bounded math of the system, the profiency system leading to swingy competency, and how DCs can inflate severely relative to PC assets). This heavy involvement has the attendant consequence of making GM influence on the resolution of any given action quite large (and hopefully declaration as hopefully the player has an idea of a DC before they declare an action).
* Background Skill system somewhere between the broadness of 4e and the granular nature of 3.x. Definitely much closer to the 4e spectrum than 3.x.
* Proficiency system + classes pushing scores toward archetype + objective world-based DCs really pushes play away from broad competency toward very swingy niche competency/excellence.
* The GM is supposed to pick the ability score that applies and also vet the Background skill bonus to modify the check.
* Tracking appears to be the old 3.x standy of Survival.
* The entries in the Adventuring section (Time, Movement, Vision and Light) has a hefty role to play in adjudication here. Specifically, there is GM guidance on ruling in a process-sim manner on these things based on how these things impact task difficulty:
a) how quickly you move and can move and the impact of travel modes
b) moving quickly makes perception more difficult (possibly imposing disadvantage...or raising the DC?)
c) dim light and lightly obscured areas make perception difficult (possibly imposing disadvantage on perception checks).
* However, the Survival entry itself just talks about tracking creatures. There are no stipulations on when you can track and there is nothing citing dramatic concerns on process concerns for when any supplementary checks are required, or if they are required. Nothing about distance. Nothing about a worsening of a conditions. It just appears to be straight conflict resolution mechanics a la 13th Age.
* Further, the rule language governing noncombat action resolution (that are not Contests) states there are two possible outcomes:
a) The declared action is a success (eg the PC tracks down their quarry)
or
b) there is no progress toward the objective - no indication that any kind of fallout should occur here...but it also doesn't say that the conflict is closed out and a campaign loss accrues (and what that entails).
or
c) there is no progress toward the objective or progress but combined with a setback as determined by the GM - akin to DW's 7-9 roll (...perhaps a Con check and the Exhaustion Rules are to to be deployed here or a random encounter with a monster - I don't believe there are codified hazards in 5e).
C above is "Fail Forward" without doing like Heinsoo and Tweet in 13th Age and canvassing the technique transparently and giving a hat-tip to its indie origins and originators.
Alright. My TL;DR takeaway:
Unlike 13th Age, (more like AD&D 2e and 3.x) most of the play procedures and rules components stress and push play toward process simulation and very heavy GM involvement and influence on any given action declaration, any given mechanical resolution of that action declaration, and any given fallout from the prior two.
However, like 13th Age and 1e, certain parts of the rules text and mechanics (which interface directly with the above) support noncombat conflict resolution. What's more, the rules text directly invokes Fail Forward (without saying it) meaning that GMing practices should (sometimes? often?) lead to "progress with setbacks" but don't establish the campaign loss condition. And, like 13th Age, I'm not sure what objective play procedures or GMing agenda/principles formally cement a campaign loss (and what that might mean...because the noncombat action resolution system is process-based rather than stakes-based), either generally, or specifically when tracking.
So, as far as I can tell, Tracking in 5e is kind of a mash-up of AD&D 2e, 3.x, and 13th Age. I think that might be the case for much of noncombat action resolution, but it definitely looks like that is the case for Tracking.
Any thoughts on Tracking mechanics in 5e (their legacy or procedures in play)?
