D&D General Weekly Wrecana : The Three Pilasters of D&D 4 parts

[Garthanos]

IMO/IME most players enjoy rolling dice, even when they aren’t there to determine whether a thing succeeds, or the scenario doesn’t involve any real risk.

For an interlude, my thought is to use dice to determine some of the details and consequences of what the PCs are doing, things like how long a thing takes (and thus whether they can finish it now or must come back to it), how NPCs react to a thing (like whether you strain a relationship with a contact by calling in a favor from them), etc.

Consequences are the results of risks. That straining a relationship is a risk and sometimes if time is of the essence so is the other.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO/IME most players enjoy rolling dice, even when they aren’t there to determine whether a thing succeeds, or the scenario doesn’t involve any real risk.

I look at it this way, if a player starts picking up dice and rolling them and doing whatever and using that to decide how they drive their part of the fiction, that's perfectly fine. When I say "no dice are rolled" I'm saying that there's no mechanical dice rolling framework which is applied in any situation in which there isn't a conflict. I don't do 'stand alone checks' as a mechanical thing.

For an interlude, my thought is to use dice to determine some of the details and consequences of what the PCs are doing, things like how long a thing takes (and thus whether they can finish it now or must come back to it), how NPCs react to a thing (like whether you strain a relationship with a contact by calling in a favor from them), etc.

As I say, that's fine in the sense that a player (or the GM for that matter) is welcome to fiddle around with some dice and use that as input to their story telling. What I don't see as being a good idea is mandating some sort of subsystems that take the place of getting to the interesting situations and building a good story. If "can they finish it now?" is REALLY important, then its a Challenge (SC in 4e parlance, basically, though I have some additional techniques). If its just some side project that the character is working on, well, then sure, roll some dice, maybe they finished it this week, maybe it will be next week after they come back from dungeon level 12 or whatever. I mean, the resulting stories might turn out differently, but the consequences of finish now vs later is undefined, so it isn't like its vital.

Since my game uses dice pools and not everything can be tied to a specific skill, many of these rolls are just a d6 or a d12, but a die is still being rolled.

One idea I had recently is to port my Heat mechanic from running magitech in Eberron into relationships. So, a relationship would have a Strain Die and an amount of current Strain, and you roll it every time you call upon that relationship. If you roll the current Strain or lower, the relationship gains 1 Strain. Eg, a basic contact might have d4 Strain, starting at 1. You call in a favor from them, with no immediate favor to give in return, so you roll a d4. If it comes up 1, the Strain increases to 2, otherwise it stays at 1. Next time you call upon them, if you’ve done nothing to repair the relationship, you increase strain on a 1 or 2.

Relationships can range from d4 to d12, probably. I’ll run some simulations in anydice and compare this scale vs “increasing numbers of d6s”, though.

Anyway, the main thing I’m surprised at how similar I’ve come around to wrecan’s ideas is simply the idea of having mechanics for interludes, thinking about knowledge and research differently than adventuring, and thinking about travel differently from adventuring.

Yeah, Wrecan and I never did quite see eye-to-eye on a lot of game design things. He did have some pretty interesting ideas in a general game-theoretical design sense, but I was never that fond of the idea of larding more and more different sorts of mechanics out there and defining a ton of different types of situations like this. Simple generality wins, IMHO.

My idea for managing relationships and whatnot is to kind of fuse the SC and disease track ideas together. In fact I consider that a design goal which I haven't dug into yet to just make the two things into one. I mean, basically disease track (and the artifact concordance track, which is basically the same thing if you think about it) is pretty much a FitD 'clock'. So, then there's the question of how to engineer things. Should these things adhere to the general model of an SC with 2 tallies, or should the SC model be restructured so that the 'track' (clock) is basic building block and a classic SC is just an instantiation of that with 2 tracks? The later structure does have the appeal of giving you more options, but then the question becomes why one would use it if the avowed purpose of mechanics is to regulate conflict? I guess you could even further generalize the whole thing as 'resource tracks', and then it could even subsume things like hit points and surges, etc. hmmmmmm.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Consequences are the results of risks. That straining a relationship is a risk and sometimes if time is of the essence so is the other.

Right, so I would generally cast a situation like this as "OK, as part of achieving some goal, you ask for this favor." Then you check to see if you get the favor, which is part of the challenge mechanics. The consequences part, that gets a bit tricky. I mean, I can see "Yeah, I did this favor for you but don't ask again." as an independent dimension, a resource track essentially.

Now I'm thinking more about all this. So, what if the model is that you have resource tracks, but they are depleted (and possibly recharged) via checks? Now my model of player rolls defense checks in combat vs GM rolls attacks becomes an example of a GENERALIZED RESOURCE MODEL. When you lean on an ally for something, its also an example of that model. When you spend money, it can be the same model (IE the track is your 'wealth level' and different degrees of expenses have different DCs to see if you can afford something, if there's depletion, etc.). You could then lean on a more DW-like degree of success/failure concept where total success avoids depletion, success invokes depletion, and failure also invokes depletion as well as whatever the other consequences are.

Sigh, now I have to write all this down in my notes, lol.

 

[Garthanos]

Right, so I would generally cast a situation like this as "OK, as part of achieving some goal, you ask for this favor." Then you check to see if you get the favor, which is part of the challenge mechanics. The consequences part, that gets a bit tricky. I mean, I can see "Yeah, I did this favor for you but don't ask again." as an independent dimension, a resource track essentially.

Now I'm thinking more about all this. So, what if the model is that you have resource tracks, but they are depleted (and possibly recharged) via checks? Now my model of player rolls defense checks in combat vs GM rolls attacks becomes an example of a GENERALIZED RESOURCE MODEL. When you lean on an ally for something, its also an example of that model. When you spend money, it can be the same model (IE the track is your 'wealth level' and different degrees of expenses have different DCs to see if you can afford something, if there's depletion, etc.). You could then lean on a more DW-like degree of success/failure concept where total success avoids depletion, success invokes depletion, and failure also invokes depletion as well as whatever the other consequences are.

Sigh, now I have to write all this down in my notes, lol.

A significant amount of your thoughts are just whirring around out there ...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A significant amount of your thoughts are just whirring around out there ...

Well, I don't have a lot of original ones, but I do throw a lot of stuff in the pot, stir vigorously, and then throw out most of the results, lol. Now and then something 'brews up' into a really useful result.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Consequences are the results of risks. That straining a relationship is a risk and sometimes if time is of the essence so is the other.

The relationship mechanics aren't a great example of rolling without risk, sure. Was kinda talking about two different things, though.

I look at it this way, if a player starts picking up dice and rolling them and doing whatever and using that to decide how they drive their part of the fiction, that's perfectly fine. When I say "no dice are rolled" I'm saying that there's no mechanical dice rolling framework which is applied in any situation in which there isn't a conflict. I don't do 'stand alone checks' as a mechanical thing.

As I say, that's fine in the sense that a player (or the GM for that matter) is welcome to fiddle around with some dice and use that as input to their story telling. What I don't see as being a good idea is mandating some sort of subsystems that take the place of getting to the interesting situations and building a good story. If "can they finish it now?" is REALLY important, then its a Challenge (SC in 4e parlance, basically, though I have some additional techniques). If its just some side project that the character is working on, well, then sure, roll some dice, maybe they finished it this week, maybe it will be next week after they come back from dungeon level 12 or whatever. I mean, the resulting stories might turn out differently, but the consequences of finish now vs later is undefined, so it isn't like its vital.

Fair enough, I simply disagree. To me, it is more fun to make a few checks when crafting a magic item to determine how much time it takes and how much it costs, within a reasonable scope, than to just say, "it takes 6 weeks and 800g". In my game, that sometimes means rolling a check with results based on degree of success, and other times is simplified into a single die like the heat mechanic. How long does it take to hear back from a research contact? Roll the die. If you are doing something to speed it up, you might roll a different die or something, but even if the result doesn't actually matter, IME it's simply more fun to slightly randomize the result in a way that involves physical engagement with game materials.

Yeah, Wrecan and I never did quite see eye-to-eye on a lot of game design things. He did have some pretty interesting ideas in a general game-theoretical design sense, but I was never that fond of the idea of larding more and more different sorts of mechanics out there and defining a ton of different types of situations like this. Simple generality wins, IMHO.

I'm probably in between, on the issue of mechanically delineating stuff that could just use the same mechanic. Some stuff feels completely redundant to me if it isn't somehow mechanically distinct from other stuff.

For instance, I don't think that any game that wants to do both physical challenges and social challenges well, should do them with the same exact mechanics. They should feel different in play, not just in description. OTOH, I don't see any real value to getting nitty gritty with a hundred different weapons that each have their own mechanics.

My idea for managing relationships and whatnot is to kind of fuse the SC and disease track ideas together. In fact I consider that a design goal which I haven't dug into yet to just make the two things into one. I mean, basically disease track (and the artifact concordance track, which is basically the same thing if you think about it) is pretty much a FitD 'clock'. So, then there's the question of how to engineer things. Should these things adhere to the general model of an SC with 2 tallies, or should the SC model be restructured so that the 'track' (clock) is basic building block and a classic SC is just an instantiation of that with 2 tracks? The later structure does have the appeal of giving you more options, but then the question becomes why one would use it if the avowed purpose of mechanics is to regulate conflict? I guess you could even further generalize the whole thing as 'resource tracks', and then it could even subsume things like hit points and surges, etc. hmmmmmm.

That makes sense, too.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Fair enough, I simply disagree. To me, it is more fun to make a few checks when crafting a magic item to determine how much time it takes and how much it costs, within a reasonable scope, than to just say, "it takes 6 weeks and 800g". In my game, that sometimes means rolling a check with results based on degree of success, and other times is simplified into a single die like the heat mechanic. How long does it take to hear back from a research contact? Roll the die. If you are doing something to speed it up, you might roll a different die or something, but even if the result doesn't actually matter, IME it's simply more fun to slightly randomize the result in a way that involves physical engagement with game materials.

So, this is where we get to my perspective on 5e (other games fall into the same basket, I'm not really picking on 5e). What is the point of these checks? Someone makes up some arbitrary numbers, "6 weeks" and "800g", there's very little to support that they have any special meaning, that 6 is better than 5 weeks in some way. The way in 5e the GM just sort of says "OK, make a check now." but we don't really know what it means to succeed or fail especially, or how that fits into the greater picture of achieving some goal. Its basically arbitrary. Then the inevitable question is does it even matter?

So, with your example of the magic item, WHY is the character making it? Will they fail in their goal if they can't finish before a certain time? That would be interesting to resolve, and the fair way would be some sort of mechanics. So, to me, that's part of some sort of challenge. But if 6 weeks is just 'color', it doesn't change anything much vs 5 weeks or 10 weeks, etc. then I'm not really seeing the value of using dice, or whatever. Again, feel free at my table to toss some dice around, and you can call it a 'crafting check' if you are so disposed. Presumably the game is going to proceed at the point where you're done, one way or the other.

I'm probably in between, on the issue of mechanically delineating stuff that could just use the same mechanic. Some stuff feels completely redundant to me if it isn't somehow mechanically distinct from other stuff.

For instance, I don't think that any game that wants to do both physical challenges and social challenges well, should do them with the same exact mechanics. They should feel different in play, not just in description. OTOH, I don't see any real value to getting nitty gritty with a hundred different weapons that each have their own mechanics.

I would think these would definitely engage different traits of the PCs and need different resources, strategies, etc. Actually, in my current rules a 'Physical Challenge' (IE a discrete situation of physical danger which is resolved in the moment) is an 'Action Sequence' and uses the combat rules. It MIGHT technically not involve actual fighting, but the same 'move around on a map and make checks to take specific actions in an initiative order' can still be used. A social challenge OTOH is just plain straight up an SC. When actual combat is involved the distinction is entirely clear, but I admit that other sorts of dangerous situations are often better handled as SCs too, or even just "a check during an SC" depending on scope. This is one area where I'm quite flexible, I generally break down whatever the plot is into a challenge that has a few checks in it, but clearly the more central something is to the player's primary interest/focus in the game, the more detailed you would normally go.

So, if there's some side quest to help the clerics deadbeat cousin get out of hock with the local loansharks, that's probably just a challenge, the equivalent of an encounter, even if it involves going to several locations, intimidating some guys, and paying off a debt, etc. The players are interested enough to do it, but the campaign is mostly about demons, or whatever, not loansharks. That's kinda how I roll nowadays. For that kind of game, its much better to have a ruleset which deals easily with actions at all scales.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

So, this is where we get to my perspective on 5e (other games fall into the same basket, I'm not really picking on 5e). What is the point of these checks?

Determination via a check is more fun than simple “doing XYZ takes so much time and resources”.

Someone makes up some arbitrary numbers, "6 weeks" and "800g", there's very little to support that they have any special meaning, that 6 is better than 5 weeks in some way.

If time is limited, and downtime has multiple things you could be doing that take time and result in a benefit, time matters. If gold/money has value to the PC, usually by way of being required to gain certain resources, then how much of it a thing costs matters.

The way in 5e the GM just sort of says "OK, make a check now." but we don't really know what it means to succeed or fail especially, or how that fits into the greater picture of achieving some goal. Its basically arbitrary. Then the inevitable question is does it even matter?

This is a preference thing, and nothing more. I won’t dig further into it, because we have had this discussion a few times already in the last year or so.

So, with your example of the magic item, WHY is the character making it?

Because they want it. Or need it. Or another PC needs or wants it and lacks the skills to make it. Or it will benefit the team for an ally to have it. Or because the player likes the idea of their character crafting magic items.

Will they fail in their goal if they can't finish before a certain time?

Maybe, maybe not.

That would be interesting to resolve, and the fair way would be some sort of mechanics. So, to me, that's part of some sort of challenge. But if 6 weeks is just 'color', it doesn't change anything much vs 5 weeks or 10 weeks, etc. then I'm not really seeing the value of using dice, or whatever.

Okay. I do see the value. Also, see above. The difference between 5 and 6 mattering doesn’t necessarily mean that the activity merits multiple checks to resolve.

Again, feel free at my table to toss some dice around, and you can call it a 'crafting check' if you are so disposed. Presumably the game is going to proceed at the point where you're done, one way or the other.

I would find that attitude extremely dissatisfying as a player.

For that kind of game, its much better to have a ruleset which deals easily with actions at all scales.

I agree, which is why the basic resolution engine is the same throughout my game. Some stuff just basically bypasses the skill check step and uses the optional “roll a single due to determine some factor of the result, such as damage from an attack, duration of a variable effect, etc” step.