Why must numbers go up?

[Ariosto]

I mean, if the "best part" of an RPG is outside of the mechanics, wouldn't it make sense to minimize mechanics as much as possible?

I think you are missing the heart of the "cart before the horse" critique.

The heart lies in an appreciation that our concepts of Mount Doom and the mailbox come before any "mechanics". Why do the Light Horsemen in our game move faster than the Heavy Footmen? Because that represents a difference the designer saw in the actual troop types. Likewise, if a Griffon gets another Hit Die and better Armor Class than a Manticora, then it reflects how the designer envisioned those heraldic beasts brought to "life".

If those abstract factors are unchanging, and yet are our only "handles" on the situation, then we can be reduced to mere dice-rollers. On the other hand, if we can address the situation itself, then by changing it -- by changing what is being depicted -- we can change the depiction.

 

[Stalker0]

People have made my points in long arguments, so I'm just going to do a summary of my take on this subject for emphasis.

The model of a increasing escalation of power with level (aka numbers going up) has the following advantages:

1) A player can take on the same challenge at a higher level with a much easier time, aka a showing of gaining strength.

While typically Dnd fights happen around the level the party is at, the fact that a party can mow through a lower level encounter serves to demonstrate their strength. It roots some "reality" into the world that the characters are getting stronger from their trials.

2) Players gain greater strength over environmental factors.

And offshoot of number 1, in many cases the gaining of levels allow a player better control/resistance to the environment. That weather that causes 5 damage per round is much scarier at 1st level than at 30th, regardless of any powers or resistances.

3) Players gain new abilities with their increased power.

This one mainly revolves around aspects like skills. While combat numbers tend to be balanced out PC vs Monster, skills often have set DCs and as such the player gains the ability to do more and more things automatically as his level goes up.

Athletics is one example. At 1st level crossing a 10 foot pit might be an obstacle, at 30th it maybe no challenge at all.

 

[pemerton]

The best games I ever play in are character and DM driven, not mechanic driven.

I don't really follow the contrast. The best games I've played in or GMed are driven by the players - and especially the way the players use their PCs, including but not limited to character build and action resolution mechanics - and by the GM and the way the GM runs the gameworld - including but not limited to encounter design mechanics.

Players and DMs, not levels, should approximate the challenges and risks of the players' actions.

I don't agree with this. I spent 20 years GMing Rolemaster. RM has a fabulous character build system, workeable action resolution mechanics (which, with a bit of tweaking, are more-than-workeable for melee combat), and no level/difficulty based encounter/challenge design mechanics. This last feature is what eventually drove me to D&D 4e - like RM, it has fun character build mechanics (not as intricate, but still very flavourful), fun and tactically engaging combat (moreso for me than any prior edition of D&D) and it also solves the 15 minute workday problem for my group (whereas high level Rolemaster suffers terribly from this). And unlike RM it has the tools that help me do my job as GM - namely, to gauge challenges and to easily build encounters that work (in terms of delivering an enjoyable game experience) better than many of the RM encounters that I have build and run.

Walking to your mailbox should not be just as challenging as traveling to mount doom.

And it's not. But I don't run a game in which walking to the mailbox comes up very often.

Real estate issues haven't really come up yet in my D&D game, but in the Rolemaster games the challenges to party's houses and estates tended to be ones that were (as best I could judge) appropriate and interesting for characters of their level and ability. For example, I didn't initiate the plot involving babies in the players' hometown being born without souls (from the 3E module Bastion of Broken Souls) until the PCs were around 20th level, and hence capable of meaningfully engaging in a quest that would require them to interact with lords of karma, break into the prison planes of banished gods, enter the lingering dreamworlds of now-dead gods (and resurrect those gods), etc. Nor was the party's military base attacked by Kraken Drakes until the PCs were powerful enough to have a show at defending it from that attack.

I don't think my practice in this regard deviates very far from the norm for a lot of GMs. It is an approach that 4e is clearly well-suited to. Hence my preference for that system.

I think using mechanics as the basis for an encounter, challenge, or conflict is a mistake- likewise, using them as the sole determiner of success is a mistake- it undermines the entire reason for playing a roleplaying game or DMing one.

I'm curious - do you apply this approach to combat challenges?

It decreases player investment in the actions of his character, and it decreases the creative control of the DM.

In my own experience, the more mechanically structured the mechanics for resolving non-combat challenges, the more that players will build PCs that are well-suited to such challenges and have those PCs attempt such challenges. In my personal experience, this increases player investment - it doesn't reduce it. Others might have different experience. I know I'm not the only one, however, as there is a sizeable body of RPGers who (like me) find that games taking more "modern" approaches (eg The Dying Earth, HeroQuest or more indie games like My Life With Master) increase more dramatic and invested play.

What I like about 4e is that it combines this sort of modern sensibility with elements of the more traditional RPG (such as the intricate character building and the tactically challenging combat) which tend to be missing from some of those other games.

It supports thinking inside the box (the game) when RPGing should be about thinking outside of and beyond it (real life).

Again, I can only speak for my own experience, but this isn't what I have found to be the case. To give just one example, from my session on Sunday:

Thunderspire Labyrinth (D&D 4e module H2) has one section which is a fortress of goblinoid slave traders. Also present in the fortress are two duergar slave traders, whose comrades have purchased slaves and are taking them to their duergar fortress, but who are themselves still hanging around with the goblins. The module doesn't tell us why they are still there, but I decided that there was a type of ransom agreement, whereby the two duergar would leave the goblins only when the slaves had been taken safely to the duergar, and when the goblins' wizard leader (Golthar from The Night Below, D&D Basic module B11) had heard that the money paid for the slaves had been successfully banked and wasn't fools gold or anything similar.

The module, as written, clearly expects the players to fight the duergar. My players instead killed most of the goblins and hobgoblins first before they even found the duergar, and a parley ensued (initiated by the duergar, but bought into by the PCs who wanted to take a short rest). Using the traditional approach I (as GM) would have to set DCs for influencing the duergar, decide how many successful rolls are needed, decide whether to determine probabilities by requiring one big roll or allowing a number of more modest rolls, etc. Using the skill challenge mechanics, I only had to set a difficulty and complexity (I used the level and number of the duergar, to keep the XP balance of the adventure unchanged) and then allow the challenge to play out. Sweet-talking happened, bluffing happened, intimidation was attempted but led to the negotiations nearly collapsing (a failed skill check), more diplomacy recovered the situation (using the DMG2 rules for negating a failure) and in the end money was exchanged and a contract drafted and agreed to by both parties - money to be left by the PCs in a neutral city in exchange for return of the slaves by the duergar.​

My past experience tells me that the same result might have been possible using the traditional approach with my group. I think it is less likely that it would have done so. This is because the mechanical dynamics of the skill challenge system virtually guarantee that there will be twists and turns as the negotiations unfold, taking the story into places that no one (player or GM) foresaw when the thing started off. (This is why I don't feel the force of the "thinking inside the box" or "killing creativity" criticism.)

Also, the skill challenge mechanics have other features that I like - such as a failed intimdate skill check not having to be construed as "the duergar aren't frightened" (an implausible state of affairs when they face 5 people who have laid waste to a whole fortress full of soldiers) but rather can be construed as "your frightening of the duergar doesn't further the negotiations, but rather threatens to derail the whole process". This is because a skill challenge is very clearly not just about "how many checks did we succeed on" but "what have we achieved in the gameworld by succeeding at those checks" - and hence a failed skill check doesn't mean "you're not intimidating" but rather that "your intimidation is not contributing to the result you are hoping for from this skill challenge". D&D has always had this sort of approach to combat, or at least melee combat - where a miss doesn't have to mean "I suck, I can't even hit the broadside of a barn" but rather can mean "I'm a pretty good fencer, but his parrying is even better!" - but until 4e hasn't really supported it when it comes to the resolution of non-combat challenges.

Don't get me wrong, I like having mechanical support for player action or an interactive environment. But I just think you are putting the cart before the horse.

I don't know what the metaphorical cart and horse are meant to be. What I like are mechanical systems that support the construction and resolution of the challenges that are the gist of the game while putting minimal burden on the GM to have to exercise discretion with the hope that the game will turn out to be fun. In this post, as well as others in the thread, I've tried to explain why.

 

[pemerton]

Right -- and how is this any different in your HQ or 4e game?

In part, becaue there are mechanical constraints upon the setting of difficulty - resulting in metagame priorities being more forthrightly catered to, with the ingame situation then being interpreted as consistent with the difficulty numbers that those priorities determine.

In part, because there is a clear framework for determining what happens, in the game, if the players succeed at the requisite number of dice rolls. This is a function both of more express attention to scene framing, and also of having the process for moving from framing to resolution being clearly mechanically established (in HQ, it requires such-and-such a dice roll in a simple contest, or such-and-such number of points accrued in an extended contest; in 4e it requires such-and-such a number of successess before 2 failures in a skill challenge).

In part, because - in a HQ extended contest, or in a 4e skill challenge - the ingame situation evolves over a series of dice rolls, which (as in a tactical combat system common to many traditional RPGs) gives the players multiple point of input into the gameworld and the resolution of the conflict. Not everything turns on a single dice roll. (In HQ simple contests, it is a bit different - although Hero Points can still be spent - but a simple contest is by definition one in which the level of player investment is not so high).

There may be other differences as well that I've missed in the above, but they're the main ones that occur to me at the moment.

Of course, in a modern as in a traditional game it can still all end up falling over. The scene-framing can be sloppy, and the play can drift into an aspect of the scene that was poorly framed. The GM and/or players can suffer from imaginative exhaustion. The dice can come out all 1s or all 20s, making outcomes seem ineluctable. But my experience tells me that these sorts of problems are less likely. When multiple dice rolls are required, even extreme rolls can still leave some suspense in the encounter (just as in combat). When the mechanics guarantee that there will be twists and turns in the story as the resolution unfolds, imagination is more likely to be prompted (just as in combat I don't need to worry if I'm too tired to plot out all the monsters' tactics in advance - the unfolding play situation at the table will normally make me think of new and interesting tactical possibilities).

See, you posted your preference along with a quote of my opinion that if things are to be sensible then one must base odds of success on what is actually being attempted.

The basic issue for me is whether we decide on "sensible" first and then set the odds, or rather first set the odds, and then set the details of the gameworld to ensure the "sensible". For a long time I played games that took the first approach - primarily AD&D and Rolemaster. I now have a preference for games that take the second approach - particulary 4e D&D. Once upon a time I hated the ingame/metagame wedge that the second approach leads to. Now I just take that separation in my stride. Paying explicit attention to the metagame has straighout increased my enjoyment from fantasy RPGing.

Along the way, you made claims about "GM discretion" that I am afraid I just do not see supported here at all.

The traditional approach requires the GM to decide how hard it is to persuade a Titan given circumstances XYZ. This requires the exercise of discretion. In my experience, in a situation where the players and the GM don't see eye-to-eye on the details of the gameworld (quite a common situation - after all, the GM has all the maps and notes, the players just have their half-baked memories of what the GM has told them is going on), the GM's exercise of discretion can lead to the game misfiring - either the tasks are made so hard that the players with social skills feel ripped off, or so easy that the players with social skills have an at-will "I win" button. Either situation, but especially the first, pushes the game back in the direction of combat, where (in a traditional fantasy RPG) the parameters and rules constraints are known to all participants independently of the discretion of any one of them (monsters have a pregiven AC and hp, player attack rolls are resolved on a known combat matrix etc).

The modern approach fastens first upon a difficulty - which is based on metagame considerations about what counts as a mechanically fun and playable challenge - and then gets the GM to tweak the story to fit that. If it turns out that the players don't find the GM's story especially plausible (eg they are expressing surprise that it's so hard, or so easy, to persuade the Titan) the GM can even change the story on the fly as the situation evolves (eg it turns out some other factor was at play which becomes apparanet to the PCs - and hence the players - as the challenge unfolds) without mucking up the flow of the game mechanics.

I find the latter approach easier on the GM, more encouraging for the players, and more likely to produce more interesting stories more often. That's just one person's experience, but it's a genuine one. And I know I'm not the only RPGer who has had it.

 

[pemerton]

The heart lies in an appreciation that our concepts of Mount Doom and the mailbox come before any "mechanics". Why do the Light Horsemen in our game move faster than the Heavy Footmen? Because that represents a difference the designer saw in the actual troop types.

Right. But the modern approach doesn't deny this. It's just that it sets the difficulty of the challenge first, and then adds or subtracts factors from the ingame situation to make it the sort of thing apt to be mechanically depicted at those challenge levels.

if we can address the situation itself, then by changing it -- by changing what is being depicted -- we can change the depiction.

You're correct that, under the modern approach, the idea of "addressing the situation" itself doesn't work like it does in the traditional approach. This is most obvious in a game like HeroQuest, where (for example) equipment ranging from the mundane to magical trinkets are all just abilities able to be used either as primaries or for augments. As I noted upthread in my discussion of bribes, D&D 4e is a bit of a mixed bag in this respect, and therefore needs a bit of mechanical fancy footwork to be used at those points where the traditional (eg detailed equipment lists) and the modern (skill challenges with difficulties first, narration second) come into contact. My personal view is that this is a part of the game where more design effort would help.

If those abstract factors are unchanging, and yet are our only "handles" on the situation, then we can be reduced to mere dice-rollers. On the other hand, if we can address the situation itself, then by changing it -- by changing what is being depicted -- we can change the depiction.

I think this is a key point. It's one I've seen on these boards multiple times (eg skill challenges are just an exercise in dice rolling). But it's not one that my experience bears out.

As opposed to theoretical critique, I wonder if you, or anyone else, has had an actual play experience in which a "modern" game like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth or similar became a mere exercise in dice rolling? I've never heard of such an experience, but then most of the threads I've read discussing these sorts of issues are on RPGnet or The Forge, and obviously on those forums there can be an issue of preaching to the converted.

In fact, I might fork this question to a new thread!

 

[Garthanos]

People have made my points in long arguments, so I'm just going to do a summary of my take on this subject for emphasis.

The model of a increasing escalation of power with level (aka numbers going up) has the following advantages:

1) A player can take on the same challenge at a higher level with a much easier time, aka a showing of gaining strength.

While typically Dnd fights happen around the level the party is at, the fact that a party can mow through a lower level encounter serves to demonstrate their strength. It roots some "reality" into the world that the characters are getting stronger from their trials.

Its on my list... its called don't be afraid to let the player characters show off so they feel there power. But its not that tightly tied to leveling it just means there need to be non-heroics to compare with... for instance in some games using Mooks or Minions to show what normal Joes are like. I have adjusted 4es minions primarily to make them interesting and not in ways that inhibit there function... ie they make the pcs feel awesome.

 

[Ariosto]

Using the traditional approach I (as GM) would have to set DCs for influencing the duergar, decide how many successful rolls are needed, decide whether to determine probabilities by requiring one big roll or allowing a number of more modest rolls, etc.

Using the skill challenge mechanics, I only had to set a difficulty and complexity (I used the level and number of the duergar, to keep the XP balance of the adventure unchanged) and then allow the challenge to play out.

You set the DCs, the number of rolls, that X successes were needed before Y failures, and which skills were applicable, did you not? None of that was in the players' hands?

You seem to close your eyes to this, so that you can see "GM discretion" weighing heavily only on the other fellow. But what of the players' involvement?

This is because the mechanical dynamics of the skill challenge system virtually guarantee that there will be twists and turns as the negotiations unfold, taking the story into places that no one (player or GM) foresaw when the thing started off.

No, they assure no such thing -- except as your group chooses to interpret them. All they actually do on their own is chalk up "successes" and "failures" without even any abstract mechanical coupling.

You seem to close your eyes to this, so that you can see the other fellow's starting with the substance of negotiation attempts and following with "mechanical dynamics" as lacking dramatic and unforeseen twists and turns.

In part, becaue there are mechanical constraints upon the setting of difficulty

How? After you answer that factually, consider: Why do insist that there cannot be "mechanical constraints" based on particulars of circumstances in the game, rather than upon "metagame priorities"?

Dislike is one thing; such denial seems to be closing your eyes to facts.

In part, because there is a clear framework for determining what happens, in the game, if the players succeed at the requisite number of dice rolls.

Sure there is. You just look in the rulebook, and it tells you, eh? No "GM discretion?"

It seems once again that you have blinders on, because you don't want to see the clarity that comes of players being able to work with things we can actually visualize, what our characters are doing in the world.

In part, because - in a HQ extended contest, or in a 4e skill challenge - the ingame situation evolves over a series of dice rolls, which (as in a tactical combat system common to many traditional RPGs) gives the players multiple point of input into the gameworld and the resolution of the conflict. Not everything turns on a single dice roll.

Whereas, in other games, "everything turns on a single dice roll"? And that's the only "point of input into the gameworld and the resolution of the conflict"?

What was that you just drove into blindly? I think it was your own straw man.

I now have a preference for games that take the second approach - particulary 4e D&D.

Hey, knock yourself out in the preference department. That's nobody's beeswax but your own. Thing is, you went (and keep on going) out of your way to lay a lot of loopy accusations at the first approach. They just don't hold up.

The traditional approach requires the GM to decide how hard it is to persuade a Titan given circumstances XYZ. This requires the exercise of discretion.

Meaning what? That the GM has to be present, engaged with the matter at hand, and respond to it. Again and again, you spotlight the "modern" GM determining pretty much everything about a "scene" while the dice-rollers players are just along for the ride.

If there were in fact nothing for the GM to decide, because it makes the same difference if the players say it, then you might have a leg on which to stand. As it is, you are actually arguing not for less GM discretion but for more arbitrary GM discretion.

The modern approach fastens first upon a difficulty - which is based on metagame considerations about what counts as a mechanically fun and playable challenge - and then gets the GM to tweak the story to fit that.

There goes that amazing Invisible GM again. How does he do it? Here, put on this magic blindfold...

As opposed to theoretical critique, I wonder if you, or anyone else, has had an actual play experience in which a "modern" game like HeroQuest, The Dying Earth or similar became a mere exercise in dice rolling?

Yes. It is not a mere theoretical critique. I have had about as much of 4e play experience all around as I can stand.

When it comes to that sort of thing, I just want to get it over with quickly and on to the next really significant decision. I don't want to spend a bloody hour at it! One thing I like about old D&D is that the dice-churning part of combat is usually over while in WotC-D&D I would still be waiting for my second turn. On with the adventure is what that means to me!

 

[Garthanos]

On with the adventure is what that means to me!

I enjoy the lower level tactical choices in combat... it helps me visualize it, didnt get any of that in early D&D and quite honestly it still ended up being a lot of go to the next room and clear it out "I hit it with my sword" snooze fest ... do I fight or do I run... one bloody choice.

 

[Garthanos]

Whereas, in other games, "everything turns on a single dice roll"? And that's the only "point of input into the gameworld and the resolution of the conflict"?

Tons different than the applauded wicker man of a walk to Mordor being the same difficulty as a walk to the mail box which was cheered by the flame bearers .... sorry its a bunch of hoo haw.

Earlier editions had trivial mechanics for handling social interaction (like the reaction table)which for some people became the only element for adjudicating it and now for some people do indeed take something like skill challenges that should be organic and virtually seemless and make them in to a dice fest.. Both are not the intention of either game.

Using multiple dice rolls and multiple skills (which could apply) from my experience inspire people to think about how they can apply various skills to a given task it ups the level of creativity in that regard.

 

[Ariosto]

From what I have seen, the "modern" answer to "Why must numbers go up?" is illusion.

Look, I don't see the rhetorical question as directed against Superhero Sam getting 40 more points of this or +7 to that so we can properly represent his being Super relative to Normal Joe.

The objection I see is to the sleight of hand of always jacking up other numbers so that Superhero Sam doesn't get a chance to shine by making anything look easy. More specifically, I see (and offer) objection to the negation of player agency -- negation in the name of "protecting" players from the "vulnerability to GM discretion" that freedom to choose actual strategies, and reap the yields, might entail. It replaces "vulnerability to" with "total dependence upon"!

Well, that doesn't look so appealing, does it? If it's laid out plainly that the odds and stakes are just the same and nothing changes but window dressing with no actual relevance to the conduct of the game, then the natives might get restless.

So, let's make the numbers bigger to give the illusion of change while everything is frozen in place. "Here's the good news about inflation: In the future, everyone will be a millionaire!"

It's not like having Pick Locks 90% means you'll actually have a 90% chance to pick a lock. It's not as +12 to hit means, as it used to mean, that you'll actually hit more often. Nope. As a consequence of that and other innovations, more hit points just mean longer combats.

"I'll be seeing you!"