Why must numbers go up?

[Raven Crowking]

Earlier editions had trivial mechanics for handling social interaction (like the reaction table)

I turn your attention to the methods for determining henchman/hireling loyalty in the 1e DMG. It requires the DM to analyze what the PCs actually did in the game in relation to their henchmen/hirelings prior to making a roll, with the PCs' actual behaviour being the primary determinant of what follows.

Now, it might not be your cup of tea, but it does mean that the players are offered far more in terms of decision points than they are in the skill challenge system. Indeed, the skill challenge system is an extremely trivial mechanic in comparison!

Play what you prefer, of course. I also like some of the complexity brought about by the WotC editions (and it shows in my own game).....But I don't for a minute imagine that 1e fails in the "rules complexity" test!

 

[Raven Crowking]

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!"

I could not agree with this more.

Some of the WotC-D&D mechanics are worthwhile, I grant without reservation. I think 3e did a fantastic job with the skill system overall, for example. But I really dislike the design philosophy these mechanics are linked to, and the consequences for how they interact with each other.

If 4e had been OGL, there would undoubtably be a version of 4e available, right now, that I would enjoy playing. And I guarantee that such a version could be made without the numbers bloat 4e has.

It is my guess that this is why 4e is not OGL.


RC

 

[Garthanos]

I turn your attention to the methods for determining henchman/hireling loyalty in the 1e DMG.

And away from a simplistic table that was used far more often in the game in question... I never seen henchmen used in many games watched and several albeit short campaigns played ... now that one die roll table ... that was all over the place.... every encounter.

 

[Raven Crowking]

And away from a simplistic table that was used far more often in the game in question... I never seen henchmen used in many games watched and several albeit short campaigns played ... now that one die roll table ... that was all over the place.... every encounter.

You're right, of course; your anecdotes are more authoritative than the books themselves.



Or, perhaps, we could agree that earlier editions offered both simple and complex methods of resolution, and those engaged in the game were supposed to determine which applied at what time?

RC

 

[Ariosto]

Garthanos, if you seriously believe that you have some power to dictate how dice land, then we are on different planets.

Otherwise, a moment's application of common sense should suggest that merely tossing dice gives one no more influence just for tossing more! The chance of three coins coming up all "heads" is exactly the same as an "8" coming up on a single eight-sided dice.

If the third coin comes up "tails", then you have lost the toss just as surely as if it had been the first, or if the dice yielded a different number. If you concede after two coins, or one, come up heads then you have lost and not had your full chance.

A binary proposition is a binary proposition is the same no matter what cosmetics you put on it.

The only way to affect the outcome is to change the odds. That's what we get to do as players when we get to make choices that give + or - factors to the roll.

If we're going to make multiple rolls, it can be in actually coupled ways that let us in fact see progress toward success without arbitrarily increasing risk of failure.

Beyond that, we can even get the chance to choose just what's on the line. It's not just Susan making up a story after the fact about why she's using Skill X, when the real reason is that her +9 is in that instead of in Danny's Skill Y. It's shooting out the lights with Marksmanship because that will give a bonus to Danny's Stealth. A missed shot isn't necessarily a "strike toward striking out". Maybe all it does is delay the operation while Susan takes aim again. Maybe all total failure on her part means is that Danny goes in without the bonus.

If things don't work out, maybe the players will call off the infiltration rather than risk capture. On the other hand, maybe they will continue by switching to Plan B -- a different set of challenges and consequences.

That process of engaging the in-world situation offers a lot more of a feedback loop, more player influence on the outcome, even if it all takes place prior to a single dice roll. Advantages can be secured and potential consequences constrained before the introduction of chance.

 

[Garthanos]

The only way to affect the outcome is to change the odds. That's what we get to do as players when we get to make choices that give + or - factors to the roll.

Happens all the time during a skill challenge not sure what you think is different here?

Choosing how you apply to skills over a multi stage process does allow one to modify the results in mid stream I have seen one skill rolls failure enable a different skill to be applied because it changed the situation. And I dynamically set the difficulties of individual rolls or allow an auto success when it makes no sense for a part of a plan to fail. Is that going beyond the rules for a skill challenge? And if somebody is stretching it to apply a skill that really doesnt work that well towards achieving the end they get penalties perhaps in the form of higher difficulties

As I said I think skill challenges are presented overly mechanistically.

That process of engaging the in-world situation offers a lot more of a feedback loop, more player influence on the outcome, even if it all takes place prior to a single dice roll

I have no problem with players engaging the in world situation... if they dont its like passing up tons of bonuses on there characters performance.
Yeah if you dont use the game mechanics to decide anything the player has lots of influence... its called being extremist (4e didnt throw out the dm deciding what you just decided to do is so simple/perfect you auto succeed)
We have to mix in both character ability and player ability if you want players to pretend to be something other than me in a funny suit.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think that most of us can agree, in a general way, that mechanics make great servants, but particularly poor masters. I don't think that is an edition-specific observation, either.

 

[Ariosto]

We have to mix in both character ability and player ability if you want players to pretend to be something other than me in a funny suit.

I don't think it would even occur to any of my players to pretend to be Garthanos in a funny suit.

However, if Susan wants to play her role as Susan the Shooter, then that's fine by me. It's a game, not a voice-acting job.

Happens all the time during a skill challenge not sure what you think is different here?

One difference is between your apparent notion of how probability works and how it actually works. Another is between your notion of how games other than 4e work and how they actually work. Finally, there is the gulf between what you think "trivial" means and what it actually means.

We are so tremendously sick of your rudeness. Last chance. See the warning on the following page. ~ PCat

Any time you want, you are welcome to move on to a real "macho" game such as Campaign For North Africa or FATAL. Then you can be truly free of "trivia" -- because (as you seem to think) the significance of a process is in proportion to how complicated, counter-intuitive and time-consuming it is.

As for myself, I will continue to prefer an elegant approach. I will continue to regard as trivial the futzing about with things that make trifling difference, and to prefer to spend my gaming time on actually decisive decisions.

 

[Garthanos]

However, if Susan wants to play her role as Susan the Shooter, then that's fine by me. It's a game, not a voice-acting job.

If Susan the quiet wants to play susan the boysterous who gets people to follower her.. we are not talking voice acting... we are talking skills and various capabilities ... the funny suit comes in when she has to figure out the best kind of shoes to purchase to allow her to be properly stealthy... its her characters ability not hers.(she shouldnt be calculating the volume of a fireball)

 

[Garthanos]

One difference is between your apparent notion of how probability works and how it actually works. Another is between your notion of how games other than 4e work and how they actually work. Finally, there is the gulf between what you think "trivial" means and what it actually means.

Your such a sweeeet person. Your notion of civility is really obscure.