Why must numbers go up?

[ggroy]

One difference is between your apparent notion of how probability works and how it actually works.

Are you referring to the gambler's fallacy?

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Garthanos]

Are you referring to the gambler's fallacy?

Gambler's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Referring to mind reading apparently. More opportunities for choices on the players part is the primary reason why I value dividing actions in to parts.

Note: I didn't say when the rolls balance out then the choices made become a bigger determinant... which could be interpreted that way.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don't understand this. If Sam once was able to defeat goblins, but only with difficulty, and now is able to defeat demon lords with about the same degree of ease, how is Sam not getting to shine?

I see (and offer) objection to the negation of player agency

I also don't understand this. I can see that one might prefer to play a different sort of game, in which "engaging the situation" is the preferred mechanism for play, rather than "engaging the action resolution mechanics". But I don't see how the latter negates player agency.

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?

Yes, I set the DCs and complexity within the constrains permitted by challenge level - I've set out in some detail in earlier posts the nature of the constraints this imposes on the GM. No, I did not determine which skills were applicable - the players choose which skills to use, based on their assessment of how, given the abilities their PCs have to bear, they want to tackle the challenge.

You seem to close your eyes to this, so that you can see "GM discretion" weighing heavily only on the other fellow.

I discussed in some detail earlier how the scene-framing discretion a GM has in the modern approach works, and why - in my experience - it constrains the GM in a different, and in my view greater, way than is the case for the traditional approach. I return to this again at the end of this post.

But what of the players' involvement?

What of it? They chose how to tackle the situation - to negotiate rather than fight, to use diplomacy rather than intimidation up until the last minute, and to settle the issue via a contract for ransom at an undervalue in which the duergar therefore bore the loss. I don't quite know what greater degree of involvement there could be, given that they are still playing a game in which there is a GM who has distinct responsibilities for controlling the gameworld beyond the PCs.

you spotlight the "modern" GM determining pretty much everything about a "scene" while the dice-rollers players are just along for the ride.

In light of what I've said in previous posts, including a detailed example of actual play from a game I GMed last weekend, I don't really see where this is coming from. To reiterate - the players choose how to engage the scene (both via skill choice, and indication of what they hope to achieve via that sill check) and repeatedly do so at every point where a skill check has been resolved and the ingame situation therefore changed in response (either as the players desired, or not, depending upon the success or failure of the skill check). I don't see the railroading. I've deliberately drawn the comparison to tactically rich combat mechanics (such as Rolemaster's system of choosing an OB/DB split every round of combat, or 4e's system of the player having to choose which power to use and how to deploy a limited suite of actions each round) to illustrate the similarities to mechanical systems which are generally seen as the antithesis of railroading, precisely because they provide a mechanical framework in which the players get to determine their goals and the way they will use the game mechanics to try and achieve those goals, with the rules mandating mulitple points of engagement unfolding in a dynamic fashion responsive to the players' choices.

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.

Of course there can be twists and turns in the traditional approach. But the mechanics don't guarantee it, or build it in from the ground floor up. It depends upon mediation by the GM interpreting the ingame causal logic of the negotiation situation. This can work, but in my exerience is more difficult both for GM and players. I take this up again at the end of the post.

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.

I'd prefer it if you didn't impute desires or wilful blindness. But putting that to one side, in the modern approach there are things to visualise, of PCs doing things in the world. Furthermore, these determine the way the resolution of the challenge unfolds. The difference is that at certain key points the question of the success or failure of the PC's schemes is given over to the dice, with difficulties having been set in a way that responds to metagame priorities rather than the GM's judgement of the ingame causal likelihoods.

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.

Which happens in skill challenges via secondary checks, or via augments in HQ contests.

Beyond that, we can even get the chance to choose just what's on the line.

Likewise in a skill challenge - by changing the ingame situation at an earlier stage of the challenge, the later situation can be made more conducive to the PC's abilities. (There is some discussion of this also in the HeroWars rulebook, which you have, in the rules on extended contests.)

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.

I don't understand "after the fact". The framing of the scene, and of the circumstances of each check, is part of the process of making the check, and happens before the dice are rolled.

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.

I don't agree with this. I've regularly posted (including in this thread) that the 4e skill challenge rules need work, both in their detail and in their exposition. But it is pretty obvious how they're meant to play. The early designers (Mearls, Heinsoo) have been quite upfront about the influence of modern (indie) games on the design. The later designers include Robin Laws, who is one of the most influential of the modern designers.

You may have noticed over a number of threads where you've encountered friction that I've never been one to query your presentation of the traditional approach to play, even at points where it is fair to say that the rules don't always express it clearly, but rather assume that the player already knows how to do it (whether from earlier rulebooks, or from actual play experience with other players). Well, I would hope that you would extend the same courtesy of not holding me responsible for the deficiencies of the 4e designers in stating their own rules. For anyone who knows the context of those rules (as I've set out in the previous paragraph) it's pretty obvious how they are to be used. It's not just an arbitrary interpretation imposed by me and my group.

Why do insist that there cannot be "mechanical constraints" based on particulars of circumstances in the game, rather than upon "metagame priorities"?

I don't insist on any such thing. I do assert that the operation of these mechanical constraints depends to a greater degree upon the GM's discretion - as I've tried to explain in previous posts, and will take up again below.

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

Yes. The rulebook tells you "firm but fair, +5%". What counts as "firm but fair"? This is an exercise of GM discretion. It's as if the combat rules said "hard blow, -5 hit points" and the GM had to determine, for every round of combat, whether what the player described his/her player as doing counted as a hard blow. But combat doesn't work that way - there are to-hit dice, damage dice and so on which obviate the need for the GM to exercise that particular sort of discretion. The modern approach is analogous - not identical, but analogous in the ways I have described - to this.

That process of engaging the in-world situation offers a lot more of a feedback loop, more player influence on the outcome

This is the obvious point where the contention lies. This is why I talk about GM discretion - because in traditional play, the GM is sole authority over both the starting state of the ingame situation, and the way that it unfolds in relation to player input. The modern approach takes some of that authority away from the GM by establishing mechanics which mandate, if certain dice rolls succeed, the occurrence of transitions of the ingame situation in the players' favour. The nature of those transitions is ultimately up to the GM to narrate in light of the action the player has described, but their occurrence is not. That is, the link between the GM's authority over the nature of the ingame situation, and the GM's authority over the likelihood of the players succeeding in their endeavours, is severed.

As I've said in earlier posts, I have successfully GMed many games using the traditional approach. I believe that that success is helped when there is a high degree of familiarity and trust among GM and players, such that the need for the GM to translate his/her authority over the ingame situation into actual difficulty levels and modifiers is not a source of disagreement or tension between participants.

THe modern approach changes the GM's role in a way that I find makes my job easier. And I certainly do not have any experience of it reducing player agency.

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!

Different people want different things from the game. For some people, "the dice-churning part of combat" is an important part of the game, in which choices are made that express their character and develop the adventure. The combat mechanics obviously matter here - Rolemaster is in my view superior to AD&D or Runequest in this respect, because it has the OB/DB split decision to be made every round (Classic Traveller also has similar rules for it's hand to hand combat), as opposed to simply a role against static numbers. D&D 4e is also dynamic in a similar way, because of the power system, the economy of actions, and their interactions.

I'll happily agree that mere dice rolling without choices that express the PC, or other aspects of the player's orientation towards the adventure, is tedious in more than small doses. But in my play experience 4e does not have a lot of such dice rolling. Both in combat and in skill challenges, the dice rolling is integrated into a framework of choices that are meaningful in both a tactical sense - ie they affect the likelihood of winning or losing - and a narrative sense - they determine the shape of the story and the way the PC is expressed as a protgaonist in that story.

I would certainly not recommend 4e to anyone who prefers to "engage the situation" in the classic (A)D&D style, rather than engage via (rather heavy) game mechanics. But nor would I recommend classic (A)D&D to anyone who wants to play a game that will run smoothly for non-combat as well as combat challenges, unless they could be assured of a GM in whom they had not only a high degree of trust in general, but also a high degree of overlap in the way they picture the gameworld and the ingame causality that governs it. And I think years of threads on ENWorld, RPGnet, Usenet etc concerning alignment disputes, adjudication of charm spells, complaints about "mother-may-I" GMing and the like show that I am not alone in perceiving these weaknesses, as well as the obvious strengths, in the traditional approach.

 

[Ariosto]

Here's a bit of fun and games for you.

If for some reason success at an endeavor depends on success of four rolls in a row at 80% each, then it is easy to figure the final chance of success at about 41%, or nearly 3:2 against.

Now, what are the odds of a 4e Complexity 4 skill challenge -- 10 successes before 5 failures -- at 80% (5+ on d20) per roll? How about Complexity 5 (12/6) at 85%? Complexity 3 (8/4) at 55%?

 

[MerricB]

Here's a bit of fun and games for you.

If for some reason success at an endeavor depends on success of four rolls in a row at 80% each, then it is easy to figure the final chance of success at about 41%, or nearly 3:2 against.

Now, what are the odds of a 4e Complexity 4 skill challenge -- 10 successes before 5 failures -- at 80% (5+ on d20) per roll? How about Complexity 5 (12/6) at 85%? Complexity 3 (8/4) at 55%?

Aristo, just a note: the rules for Skill challenges have changed. It's before *three* failures for all cases. I'll try and remember my probability lessons and answer your question shortly.

Cheers!

 

[Ariosto]

Pemerton, I am not about to respond to your "wall of text" with another.

You sure cracked me up with:

Yes. ... This is an exercise of GM discretion.

It looks as if you managed to confuse yourself!

Look, you would be in like Flynn if you would just stick with your preference. Your other claims just dig a deeper and deeper pit. Your claims about the supposed superior qualities of your game fall apart at both ends. First, what you seem to take as supporting examples from your game often enough actually demonstrate just the opposite! Second, when you give your version of "traditional" RP gaming, it sure as heck ain't the tradition I've seen since the 1970s!

You keep going way out on limbs, as if exaggerating the difference between your game and so many others is somehow going to improve opinions of it among folks who happen to prefer the others.

 

[MerricB]

Here's a bit of fun and games for you.

If for some reason success at an endeavor depends on success of four rolls in a row at 80% each, then it is easy to figure the final chance of success at about 41%, or nearly 3:2 against.

Now, what are the odds of a 4e Complexity 4 skill challenge -- 10 successes before 5 failures -- at 80% (5+ on d20) per roll? How about Complexity 5 (12/6) at 85%? Complexity 3 (8/4) at 55%?

COMPLEXITY 3 skill challenge: 8 successes before 3 failures.
70% base chance = 39% chance of success
75% base chance = 53% chance of success
80% base chance = 68% chance of success
85% base chance = 82% chance of success
90% base chance = 93% chance of success

COMPLEXITY 4 skill challenge: 10 successes before 3 failures.
70% base chance => 25% chance of success
75% base chance => 39% chance of success
80% base chance => 55% chance of success
85% base chance => 75% chance of success
90% base chance => 89% chance of success

COMPLEXITY 5 skill challenge: 12 successes before 3 failures.
70% base chance => 16% chance of success
75% base chance => 28% chance of success
80% base chance => 45% chance of success
85% base chance => 65% chance of success
90% base chance => 84% chance of success

Cheers!

 

[Eridanis]

Stop sniping at one another and stay on topic, please.

 

[pemerton]

You sure cracked me up with: It looks as if you managed to confuse yourself!

Pleased to amuse!

You keep going way out on limbs, as if exaggerating the difference between your game and so many others is somehow going to improve opinions of it among folks who happen to prefer the others.

I'm not interested in making people enjoy something they don't. I've even described a type of player who I think would not enjoy 4e - namely, someone who prefers to "engage the situation" rather than engage rather heavy game mechanics. This probably overlaps with the sort of person who criticises 4e as being too similar to a boardgame or M:TG. I imagine such a player would also dislike HeroQuest or The Dying Earth (two pick on two examples) because, for example, in those games one cannot rely upon equipment, or upon a relationship with an NPC, unless it has been built into the character's abilities via the expenditure of character-buidling currency.

What I am trying to demonstrate is that "modern" games are not mere exercises in dice-rolling that undermine player agency. I would have thought this is obvious in relation to The Dying Earth or HeroQuest (or any number of other modern RPGs). To the extent that 4e draws heavily upon the design of those games, the claim is equally false of it.

 

[Ariosto]

Thanks, MerricB!

I must admit, those figures don't pop right into my head as an intuitive assessment.

(The replacement of everything from 2 failures through 6 with 3 does not appear in the third consolidated errata, issued two months after the DMG, either, so I infer that there is at least a fourth.)