Why must numbers go up?

[Talysian]

One thing I've always liked is open ended damage dice That way even the lowliest of peons can get lucky.

 

[pemerton]

Interpersonal influence was introduced before the combat rules in the original RPG!

<snip>

However, the particulars of a situation can make a huge difference! It's easy to assume some subtle nuances of "how" in a skill factor, but the "what" tends to be a very, very important part of the "why" shaping a response.

Whacking someone with a weapon is simply something one does to him if he fails to avoid the blow. Persuasion or influence, on the other hand, is likely to depend largely on "what's in it for me" from the "target's" perspective.

So, if things are to make any sense at all, it is IMO necessary to work out how successful an attempt is likely to be on the basis of what is being attempted.

I tend to prefer a more modern approach, where the encouner/challenge design rules determine a difficulty, and the circumstances and compounding factors are then narrated to reflect that difficulty, rather than the more traditional approach, of the GM intuiting the implications for difficulty of the circumstances and compounding factors.

In my experience, one effect of the traditional approach is to create a bias in favour of combat over social interaction, because the parameters for the former are less subject to GM discretion, and so more knowable and controllable by the players. If there is a high degree of familiarity and trust between players and GM, the discouraging effect of GM discretion can be reduced - and certainy I've seen interesting social play in AD&D games.

 

[Ariosto]

because the parameters for the former are less subject to GM discretion

Since when? How?

In my experience, the effect of the traditional approach is to make "interesting social play" actually relevant -- so it is hardly surprising that you have seen it.

I tend to prefer a more modern approach, where the encouner/challenge design rules determine a difficulty, and the circumstances and compounding factors are then narrated to reflect that difficulty.

Does it make no difference, then, who would be doing what for whom -- giving versus receiving a pound of silver, say -- or what the consequences are, or the relationship prevailing between the parties? Is it as easy to intimidate an Elder Titan into subservience as to get patronage based on acceptance of one's own services in pursuit of some goal of the Titan's?

Is it really the case that even such basic parameters of the situation are totally subject to GM discretion, or rather dictation? Do the players in fact have no control even over the goals of their characters' interactions with other characters?

Are all significant non-combat interactions limited to cases as stereotyped as those given tables in En Garde? Is it thus even in a game as far removed from such tight focus as is D&D?

How does it work?

 

[MichaelSomething]

The difference advancing hit points have ... is a sense of innevitability... but also reliability you can rely on probabilities to induce some of there effects... but hit points give the player a measure of when the luck of heros is wearing thin and and sense of the fatigue of muscle and mind for his character.... if its all probabilistic it removes a basis for choice.

Then the toughness save from Mutants and Masterminds may be closer to what you're looking for.

 

[pemerton]

Does it make no difference, then, who would be doing what for whom -- giving versus receiving a pound of silver, say -- or what the consequences are, or the relationship prevailing between the parties? Is it as easy to intimidate an Elder Titan into subservience as to get patronage based on acceptance of one's own services in pursuit of some goal of the Titan's?

Is it really the case that even such basic parameters of the situation are totally subject to GM discretion, or rather dictation? Do the players in fact have no control even over the goals of their characters' interactions with other characters?

I'm not entirely sure what sort of response you're looking for, because I know from some of your other recent posts that, while you pretty clearly prefer traditional D&D play, you are also familiar with other RPGs of the sort that I have called "modern".

So maybe it's helpful if I say that I'm thinking of conflict resolution mechanisms like skill challenges in 4e, or HeroQuest's conflict resolution mechanism. I pick on these two because I know them both, I play 4e regularly and they're both authored (in part or whole) by Robin Laws.

To start with HeroQuest - the GM sets a numerical difficulty for the challenge based on the pass/fail cycle - that is, the more the PCs have succeeded on recent challenges, the harder the difficulty of the current challenge. This is an expressly metagame logic governing encounter design - the game rises and falls according to the logic of dramatic pacing. The causal logic of the ingame world is constantly adapted to meet this metagame constraint.

Thus, once the GM has set a difficulty, the GM then narrates circumstances of the challenge that (within the imaginary world of the game) establish the existence of that challenge having that degree of difficulty. The players then meet the challenge by explaining how their PCs use their abilities to overcome it. If the GM agrees that what the PC has described makes sense within the gameworld, dice are then rolled to resolve the challenge. Those dice rolls can be modified based on metagame considerations - if I try to bribe the Titan using my "Persuasive personality" ability I will get a penalty compared to my comrade who has the more focused "There's no palm I can't grease", the logic being to encourage players to give their PCs more focused, flavourful abilities. Those rolls can also be modified based on ingame considerations - I can augment my attempt based on abilities (eg if I'm bribing, I can augment with my "Sackloads of silver" ability) or based on earlier plot points (I may have earned a "plot augment" eg learning the magic word for persuading Titans). The number of dice rolls actually required to resolve the conflict depends upon whether the GM decides to run it as a simple or an extended contest - this does not affect the mathematical difficulty of success, but does affect the time required to play out the encounter, and hence the amount of story development that will take place as the encounter is resolved. The GM should make the decision about simple vs extended purely on the basis of metagame considerations of dramatic pacing.

Because HeroQuest has no money-management rules of the D&D sort, the difference between bribing and intimidating is all about PC abilities and hence the sorts of actions that PCs attempt, rather than about the risk/reward trade-off of spending money for a better chance vs saving money and trying for an intimidate.

The GM's express authority over framing - ie the GM has final say on whether or not a PC's action is feasible within the gameworld - might seem to give the GM an excessive degree of power. I think that in practice the mutual understanding that the GM's role is to facilitate an exciting adventure, and that this authority is only to be used to enforce basic genre considerations (which the rulebook discusses in some detail) ensure that this is not the case.

A skill challenge in 4e plays out a bit differently from this. The difficulty of the challenge is in part a function of its level (this sets numbers that must be achived via dice roll + bonus), but it also depends upon the stipulated complexity of the challenge, which sets a number of successful checks that must be achieved without suffering more than 2 failures. The GM therefore has two dimensions of discretion in setting the difficulty. The rules are a bit obscure on how a GM should do this, but I tend to use level of a challenge in the same way as level of a monster or a trap (it reflects its "toughness" relative to the PCs) and use complexity to reflect its centrality to the storyline - the sorts of actions the PCs will take to ensure success at a more complex challenge (eg aiding another) guarantee that it takes longer to resolve and soaks up more of the time (and hence the story) in a session. D&D 4e ultimately leaves it is up to the GM to set the complexity of challenges in such a way as to maintain dramatic pacing (it is not built into the rules in the way that HeroQuest does it - DMG2 tries to merge the two approaches, but in my view without fully succeeding). While there are mechanical features of the game that allow complex skill challenges to be resolved without a hugely lower numerical likelihood of success than simple skill challenges (such as the afore-mentioned aiding another) the presentation of this part of the rules - especially to players - is probably the single weakest part of the D&D 4e rulebooks.

The skill challenge mechanics allow for individual checks to be Easy, Medium or Hard (at level 1, that's 5, 10 or 15 required on d20 + bonus - the Easy numbers go up by half level, the other numbers by 2/3 level - the difference in these rates of escalation reflect peculariaties in D&D 4e between the rate of expected improvement for PCs' untrained vs trained skills). Difficulties are set in response to the players explaining what their PCs are doing, and the dice are then rolled. The GM is the final arbiter of the degree of difficulty for any given check, being encouraged to factor in both ingame (is it plausible?) and metagame (is it cool?) considerations. So sweet-talking a Titan might be easier than intimidating it.

The rules are not entirely explicit, but I think it is assumed that, as in HeroQuest, the GM has final authority on whether or not a player is allowed to have his/her PC attempt a desired action. The rules also imply that this authority should be wielded lightly, and that the preferred response is for the GM to set higher difficulty numbers for more outlandish attempts, provided that they don't violate the basic genre parameters of D&D high fantasy.

The DMG2 has some suggestions on how to account for bribes - if the bribe value is at least 10% of the value of a magic item of the challenge's level, it gives a +2 to a skill check. The rules don't deal comprehensively with all the other considerations one could think of, but (for example) a promise to give onself over into slavery to the Titan would probably be worth at least an automatic success, mabye two! D&D 4e doesn't handle some of these issues as well as HeroQuest because things like money, items and one's status as a slave operate outside the skill system, whereas in HeroQuest these are all simply character abilities, and so are integrated into the core mechanics of that game.

Attempting a summary answer to your questions: yes, the players have control over their PCs' goals, and yes, whether the PCs interests align with or conflict with those of the Titan matter, but the game mechanics establish parameters within which the players can know that, provided they can plausibly frame their PCs' response to the scene, their is a game-mechanical process they can follow that can allow them to succeed in their social endeavours. In this respect, the skill challenge rules bring social encounters in D&D 4e closer to the combat rules (in HeroQuest there is no mechanical difference between combat and other forms of conflict resolution).

The interaction between the GM's initial framing of the encounter, and the players' choices about how their PCs respond, combined with the fact that the rules require this to be driven to resolution via a dice roll, also impose shape to these encounters which I have found harder to achieve using the traditional approach. In the session I GMed on Sunday, for example, there was a negotiation between the PCs and some duergar slave traders who had purchased, as slaves, the villagefolk that the PCs were hoping to rescue. As the players narrated their PCs' skill checks - at some points Diplomacy, at other points Intimidate, and culminating in an agreement involving the drafting of a contract and the establishment of a trust fund - the encounter evolved in interesting ways, with interesting response on the part of both the NPCs and the PCs. This was entertaining to both players and GM. I've found it harder to get this sort of dynamics into social encounters using the traditional approach, because that approach puts more responsibility on me as GM to decide when and how such dynamics occur. The "modern" approach gives the mechanics - the dice - a more central role. This is another respect in which 4e social encounters are more like combat.

 

[Chrono22]

I wouldn't exactly call it "modern". Bad DMs have been doing it for years.
Seriously. The best games I ever play in are character and DM driven, not mechanic driven. Players and DMs, not levels, should approximate the challenges and risks of the players' actions. Walking to your mailbox should not be just as challenging as traveling to mount doom.
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. It decreases player investment in the actions of his character, and it decreases the creative control of the DM.
It supports thinking inside the box (the game) when RPGing should be about thinking outside of and beyond it (real life).

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.

 

[Ariosto]

To start with HeroQuest - the GM sets a numerical difficulty for the challenge based on the pass/fail cycle - that is, the more the PCs have succeeded on recent challenges, the harder the difficulty of the current challenge.

I don't recall that from the first edition (Hero Wars) that I have. Nothing fails like success? Besides all else, that's not necessarily the best (much less the only) possible narrative structure, even in the Heroquesting context with which the game was (30 years ago) supposedly to be concerned.

Thus, once the GM has set a difficulty, the GM then narrates circumstances of the challenge that (within the imaginary world of the game) establish the existence of that challenge having that degree of difficulty. The players then meet the challenge by explaining how their PCs use their abilities to overcome it.

Notice the order of things. Read your post #172 http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/274553-why-must-numbers-go-up-12.html#post5156528 again. See that "because the parameters for the former are less subject to GM discretion", that "discouraging effect of GM discretion"? Yeah, that's what had/has me scratching my head.

The number of dice rolls actually required to resolve the conflict depends upon whether the GM decides to run it as a simple or an extended contest - this does not affect the mathematical difficulty of success ...

You're sure? A single two-dice (2d20) curve duplicates the odds of multiple such curves, regardless of where the particular trait values happen to fall? Maybe HQ uses a completely different "core mechanic" now, I guess.

A skill challenge in 4e plays out a bit differently from this.

Apparently not in any way that changes the answers to the questions.

The GM is the final arbiter of the degree of difficulty for any given check, being encouraged to factor in both ingame (is it plausible?) and metagame (is it cool?) considerations. So sweet-talking a Titan might be easier than intimidating it.

You, however, seem to be against that possibility.

Attempting a summary answer to your questions: yes, the players have control over their PCs' goals, and yes, whether the PCs interests align with or conflict with those of the Titan matter ...

Oh? How's that? Are you distinguishing here how you see 4e presented from you would prefer it to work?

... but the game mechanics establish parameters within which the players can know that, provided they can plausibly frame their PCs' response to the scene, their is a game-mechanical process they can follow that can allow them to succeed in their social endeavours.

Unlike traditional games, in which the game-mechanical process does not allow them to succeed? Huh??

Where do you get this? How do you expect agreement from anyone actually familiar with Reaction, Loyalty and Morale in D&D and EPT; or Charisma SRs in T&T; or Leadership Potential in Metamorphosis Alpha; or Influence in C&S; or Administration, Bribery, etc., in Traveller; or Oratory in RQ, or ... ??!

I've found it harder to get this sort of dynamics into social encounters using the traditional approach, because that approach puts more responsibility on me as GM to decide when and how such dynamics occur.

I think you've got that backwards. The traditional approach, it seems to me, puts more responsibility on the players to decide when and how they occur.

The "modern" approach gives the mechanics - the dice - a more central role. This is another respect in which 4e social encounters are more like combat.

You've got something that works for you. That, I think, is about as far as the value of sameness goes.

 

[pemerton]

I don't recall that from the first edition (Hero Wars) that I have.

HeroQuest 2nd ed has quite different mechanics both for setting difficulties and for resolving extended contests from those in HeroWars and HeroQuest 1st ed.

You're sure? A single two-dice (2d20) curve duplicates the odds of multiple such curves, regardless of where the particular trait values happen to fall?

I'll confess that I haven't done the caluclations myself, but am relying on the presentation of the rules by the author. For the reasons you give, I wouldn't be surprised if there is a degree of deviation at the margins, but the clear intention is that simple vs extended is about investment by the players, not about difficulty of task. As my post tried to indicate, this is a difference from 4e skill challenges, although there are features of the 4e rules (like aiding another) that mitigate against the difference if used sensibly.

Notice the order of things.

Sorry, I don't see what you're getting at here. Rereading my original post, I notice there is some syntactic confusion in my use of the word "former" - it is intended to refer to what I am calling the modern approach. Does that help?

You, however, seem to be against that possibility.

I don't see why you think I'm against the possibility of sweet-talking vs intimidating making a difference. I just prefer a system where that difference is structured by the mechanics (eg in HeroQuest, it is structured by the players' decision to use their "Tongue of honey" or "Steely gaze" ability, and in 4e it is structured both by the decision to use Diplomacy or Intimdate, and the GM's setting of a difficulty level at Easy, Medium or Hard).

As to the GM's role, in 4e, of making the Easy/Medium/Hard determination, I think it would strengthen the rules for skill challenges to have more guidance on this. But even as it is, it imposes mechanical strictures that are much tighter than in what I am calling the traditional approach.

Oh? How's that? Are you distinguishing here how you see 4e presented from you would prefer it to work?

No. It makes a difference in two ways. First, it factors into the Easy/Medium/Hard determination. Second, it determines the ingame consequences of the resolution of the challenge (eg does the successful resolution of the challenge by the players leave the Titan a loyal servant of the PCs, or a cowed slave, or a grudging cooperator?). In HeroQuest the first consideration does not apply, but the second obvioulsy does - and in HeroQuest, questions of aligning or conflicting interests would also affect what abilities can be used for the challenge, both as primary abilities and as augments (eg depending on the alignment or conflict of interests, certain relationships may or may not be able to be used to resolve the challenge).

Unlike traditional games, in which the game-mechanical process does not allow them to succeed? Huh??

Where do you get this? How do you expect agreement from anyone actually familiar with Reaction, Loyalty and Morale in D&D and EPT; or Charisma SRs in T&T; or Leadership Potential in Metamorphosis Alpha; or Influence in C&S; or Administration, Bribery, etc., in Traveller; or Oratory in RQ, or ... ??!

I don't really understand the hostility of your resonse. I've GMed AD&D 1st ed. I've played and GMed Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert. I've played RuneQuest. I've played Classic Traveller. I've played Rolemaster, and GMed it regularly for 20 years. I'm very familiar with the traditional approach in a range of variations.

Of course the players can succeed in those games via the game mechanics. I've GMed multiple RM playes whose characters are built around social skills plus spells to enhance those abilities, and I've looked up and applied the results from the Influence and Interaction static action table dozens, probably hundreds of times.

The difference between the traditional and the modern approach that I experience in my own GMing is that the traditional approach does not have the same rigour in scene framing (because their is no such game mechanial notion, whereas it is central to a HeroQuest conflict or a 4e skill challenge), and therefore does not have the same rigour in setting explicit game mechanical parameters for success. In the traditional approach the GM has to assign difficulties (which in RM range from +30 for Routine to -70 for Absurd), has to interpret the meaning of near or full success with only the barest of guidane from the rules, has to decide whether one or many rolls are required, has to make calls on the permissibility of retries with very little guidance from the mechanics, etc.

As I said in my post #172, this can work. It works better, in my experiene, when there is a high degree of familiarity and trust between players and GM. My belief is that this is a result of the traditional appoach putting more weight on non-game-mechanically moderated exercises of discretion by the GM.

I happen to find the modern approach works better for me and my games. It supports me as a GM. It reduces the need for me to exercise discretion. And it brings out more interesting play from my players in social encounters.

I think you've got that backwards. The traditional approach, it seems to me, puts more responsibility on the players to decide when and how they occur.

Not in my experience. If a player roleplays her/his heart out, with her +100 to Seduction PC, but the GM has decided the difficulty for influencing the Titan is Absurd, then there is nothing the player can do to drive the encounter in a certain direction but to roll the dice and hope for luck, and that the GM will interpret success in the way the the player wants it to be interpreted. If the GM is having an off day, it can all go wrong (or at least boring) in a way that combats in games like D&D and 4e, simply in virtue of the intracy of mechanical play (and hence intricacy of interpretation of the imagined ingame situation), do not. In my experience, the modern approach goes a long way to eliminating this risk, becuase it introduces mechanical drives for ingame events (eg in skill challenges, the necessity to interpret the ingame meaning of each skill check, and to frame the next skill check in light of that) which resemble the way fantasy RPGs have tended to handle combat (each turn produces movement which can change the tactical situation, a die roll to see if hit points are deducted which can also change the tactical situation, etc).

I wouldn't imagine that everyone, or even a majority of those who visit ENworld, would share my preference for the modern over the traditional approach. I would expect most people familiar with both types of games to notice that there is a difference between them, though. And I have tried my best to answer your question, in relation to the modern approach, of how it works.

 

[Hussar]

I wouldn't exactly call it "modern". Bad DMs have been doing it for years.
Seriously. The best games I ever play in are character and DM driven, not mechanic driven. Players and DMs, not levels, should approximate the challenges and risks of the players' actions. Walking to your mailbox should not be just as challenging as traveling to mount doom.
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. It decreases player investment in the actions of his character, and it decreases the creative control of the DM.
It supports thinking inside the box (the game) when RPGing should be about thinking outside of and beyond it (real life).

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.

OTOH, the best games I've ever played are run by a solid DM with solid mechanics backing him up. Most definitely the best games I've ever run have fallen into this as well.

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? Yet, game after game, is going to a solid basis mechanics - a small (or possibly not so small) number of mechanics that can be universally applied.

Wouldn't gamers want the opposite if what you are saying is true?

 

[Ariosto]

If a player roleplays her/his heart out, with her +100 to Seduction PC, but the GM has decided the difficulty for influencing the Titan is Absurd, then there is nothing the player can do to drive the encounter in a certain direction but to roll the dice and hope for luck, and that the GM will interpret success in the way the the player wants it to be interpreted.

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

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. Along the way, you made claims about "GM discretion" that I am afraid I just do not see supported here at all. What I see, really, is just the opposite of those claims!