The Campaign Builder's Guild

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental ElfMuch of Narrativism is about giving people enough wiggle room to do cool things in a story that perhaps the rules do not account for. 4E does not openly give much of that power to players (their experience is vastly more gamist) but rather all the power is given to the DM. I'm not claiming that 4E is on the same level of Narrativism as FATE or Exalted or Marvel Heroic. However, when you venture outside of the 4E's core concept (fight/kill monsters) the game forces DM's to be Narrativist because everything is left completely vague. It forces the DM to think of player actions in terms of their story and how fast/slow they want the players to accomplish their tasks rather than relying on the arbitrary rule/guidelines that Gamist and Simmulationist games focus on.

Well, me might just have to disagree on this one.  I still don't think 4E is remotely narrativistic; I think the edition basically assumes that the players aren't really interested in anything other than defeating monsters and getting treasure, or rather (at the very lest) it assumes that those things are the central, overriding purpose of the game, rather than telling a story or collaborating on a narrative and bringing generic themes or "human" issues to the table.  Giving the DM and players pretty much 0 aid in constructing a narrative, no narative mechanics, and minimal help in world-building while aggressively concentrating on combat mechanics, grids, and loot seems like the opposite of narrativism to me.  I certainly don't see why 3.X (or even earlier editions) isn't "narrativist" by this standard; it's hardly as if the implied setting were super intrusive in 3.X, or as if the fact that they provided pricing for ten foot poles and lanterns alongside weapons in the Player's Handbook somehow destroyed the DM's storyelling powers.  No edition of D&D that I'm aware of has included any kind of mechanics that I'd characterize as properly "narrativist" in any concrete sense.  The extent to which a D&D game is or isn't "narrativist" is pretty much dependent on the DM, not the system, as I understand the term.  Perhaps this is just semantics.  Once again, I don't really think that 4E or D&D general not be especially narrativist is a weakness, I just don't think 4E privileges storytelling and narrative in any way - I think it pretty clearly privileges tactical grid-based combat at every juncture that it can.

I'm also not sure that a Gamist/Simulationist game necessarily involves "arbitrary" guidelines to accomplish tasks, but I'm not sure I understand exactly what you mean by this.  Frankly, I'm not that enamoured by GNS in general; it's a useful model at times, but it can be taken too far.

After giving it some thought, I think the issue is that I am allowing my own experiences and preferences with the system to color my perception. I have a habit of adding in a lot of Narrativist elements into every game I play. When I see vague rules, I use that as a justification for adding all kinds of Narrativist elements. I whole heartedly encourage people do do crazy things all the time simply because it is fun. When I think back to the way others have DMed the 4E, I realize there have been a few who were much less Narrativst in nature and the game felt like, well, a board game with some talking elements added in. The reason I don't say 3.x is Narrativist is because the strict rules for monster creation often felt like the designers were imposing their vision upon my game. If I want to make a Giant, why does he need all these feats and skills? Why does a character need a craft skill to make armor or a perform skill to sing a song?* Simmulationism sometimes feels like a burden when all you want to do is delve into the story or the fight.


*I do think there should some kind of guideline for making things like Houses, Beer, Armor, Boats, Food or performing but I don't really think skills are the correct route for such things. I've always preferred Non-Weapon Proficiencies for such things, most especially when you are not dealing with items of a magical nature.

It is interesting seeing how this is viewed from both te OP perspective and the responses in the differences of 3x to 4E and the pathfinderf variant.  Many of you have also asked, in different ways, my question, in that systems are built to support certain settings and certain types of games.

One of my biggest quibbles was simply that while no version of D&D really does a ton of things well, to me 4e's codifications took away what flexibility in terms of game type and system type 3x and pathfinder had and pretty much made a system built for a very narrow gauge of setting and game type.  It's going to be big, heroic, the players will get the cool stuff they want (wish lists), with very quick leaving the world of mortals far behind.

I guess I look at this from a different standpoint than many, but I did like the craziness of creativity that surrounded 3x, broken as it might have been in some ways, better than the ironclad similarities of 4E.  I do agree that 4E was easier to run and easy to learn, since there were less sub games and the classes were more similar.  I frankly found 3x lacking in some simulationist areas, so 4E was worse for me, but again, I think without the gaming background it was an easier game to learn. 

I am quite happy with the op and the questions and the good hearted way the discussion has been joined in.  I just got back from 4 days of travel, but felt the need to chime in.   

Quote from: Elemental ElfThe reason I don't say 3.x is Narrativist is because the strict rules for monster creation often felt like the designers were imposing their vision upon my game. If I want to make a Giant, why does he need all these feats and skills? Why does a character need a craft skill to make armor or a perform skill to sing a song?* Simmulationism sometimes feels like a burden when all you want to do is delve into the story or the fight.

I definitely agree with you here.  I don't think 3.X is terribly narrativistic at all, either; it's also not really all that great at simulation compared to some systems out there (say, Vreeg's Guildschool, or Rolemaster or something), really, but it's better than some systems at creating some feeling of realism.  Creating a 4E hack, I think it'd be quiet possible to layer in some grit and verisimilitude.

Quote from: sparkletwist
For what it's worth, I agree with Steerpike, too.

I also agree with the rather limited utility of GNS terminology. It's fine to throw around the words "narrativist," "simulationist" and "gamist" when you want to talk about the general categories that your game play could fall into, but the detailed analyses that originally spawned the whole theory don't actually make any sense... so it's hard to say much more than that and make any sense. (It's also why I always put the terms in scare quotes when I do use them)

So can we get back to bashing 4th edition? :D

Or, as we might put it, what kind of game are you wanting to play?  What is the ideal setting?  What is the speed of growth you want?  Since you want classes, where do you want them balanced?  Combat?  Exploration?  Adventuring?  Social growth and interaction (as Steerpike mentioned with the skills system)?  Application of treasure resources?  Do you want groups to gain exp equally, or do you want a more varied group option? How powerful do you want magic to be inside and outside of combat?  Are we expecting to go the hero/superhero/epic route, or do we want some level of grit and relationship between the PCs and the populace?

I just want to understand better from the ground up.

I liked 4e when I first read about it, and bought the books... I guess the more I played it, the more nostalgic I became for earlier editions. I came back to my home town and played with guys I had played with since 2e, guys that had always been big on role-play, intrigue, and plot, and found the game had turned into a hack-and-slash, filled with player-vs-dm mindset. And some of them knew it had happened, but couldn't shake it. The game somehow felt so mechanical, so gamey, that an inevitable sense of player entitlement and XP grind had developed.

And while I've sometimes had fun with 4e at its best, some of the experiences were ultimately unsatisfying. Partly this may be a result of presentation, and partly I think it had has to do with the basic mindset the game was driven to--which is not terribly unlike having the DM as the computer running a CRPG for the players.

I can appreciate the game that recognizes it is a game, not a simulation of reality. But I found 4e had somehow created a shift in the play style of a group I'd gamed with for years, and not one I really liked.

And I quickly grew to hate skill challenges.

Quote from: Elemental Elf*I do think there should some kind of guideline for making things like Houses, Beer, Armor, Boats, Food or performing but I don't really think skills are the correct route for such things. I've always preferred Non-Weapon Proficiencies for such things, most especially when you are not dealing with items of a magical nature.

I think that's a pretty interesting point.  I can sort of see both sides; on the one hand it's nice to distinguish between master craftsmen (your Eorlund Gray Manes and Donal Noyes and Telchars) and apprentices, and skill ranks seem like a good way to do that.  On the other hand, from a practical perspective and given the usual DCs provided, is there much point in sinking more than about 10 ranks into a Craft or Profession skill, at most?  Probably not.  Then again, splitting things that are usually considered "skills" into Skills and Proficiencies is a bit clumsy and overly-complicated.  On the other hand again, it might be cool if all characters had a selection of "non-weapon proficiencies" that didn't have to compete with their other Skills.  So a Fighter who previously had to choose whether to put ranks into Climb or Craft now wouldn't have to; he'd just pick the Armourer profession, or whatever, at 1st level, and then select his skills.

One other solution would be to design a campaign and features within it that make use of Craft and Profession skills more.  Like if the characters are in a gritty mercenary campaign along the lines of The Black Company or something from A Song of Ice and Fire, having someone with Profession (Cooking) to feed large numbers of troops, Profession (soldier) to set up camp and defences, Craft (carpentry) to make siege weapons, Craft (ships) when building a naval fleet, Craft (weapons) and Craft (armour) to produce and repair equipment, not to mention the slightly "crafty" skills like Heal, Survival, and Handle Animal etc would all be pretty useful, and one could imagine setting high DCs (to justify a large amount of ranks) for tasks that require assisting large groups of people quickly, or performing work under challenging conditions.  Arguably this is what leaving skills like Craft/Profession in as skills that can be improved accomplishes.  Some groups - your hack and slash dungeon-crawling types - can just ignore the Craft skills entirely, but in a different GM's game having a craft might be seen as much more useful.

Quote from: Steerpike

Quote from: Elemental Elf*I do think there should some kind of guideline for making things like Houses, Beer, Armor, Boats, Food or performing but I don't really think skills are the correct route for such things. I've always preferred Non-Weapon Proficiencies for such things, most especially when you are not dealing with items of a magical nature.

I think that's a pretty interesting point.  I can sort of see both sides; on the one hand it's nice to distinguish between master craftsmen (your Eorlund Gray Manes and Donal Noyes and Telchars) and apprentices, and skill ranks seem like a good way to do that.  On the other hand, from a practical perspective and given the usual DCs provided, is there much point in sinking more than about 10 ranks into a Craft or Profession skill, at most?  Probably not.  Then again, splitting things that are usually considered "skills" into Skills and Proficiencies is a bit clumsy and overly-complicated.  On the other hand again, it might be cool if all characters had a selection of "non-weapon proficiencies" that didn't have to compete with their other Skills.  So a Fighter who previously had to choose whether to put ranks into Climb or Craft now wouldn't have to; he'd just pick the Armourer profession, or whatever, at 1st level, and then select his skills.

One other solution would be to design a campaign and features within it that make use of Craft and Profession skills more.  Like if the characters are in a gritty mercenary campaign along the lines of The Black Company or something from A Song of Ice and Fire, having someone with Profession (Cooking) to feed large numbers of troops, Profession (soldier) to set up camp and defences, Craft (carpentry) to make siege weapons, Craft (ships) when building a naval fleet, Craft (weapons) and Craft (armour) to produce and repair equipment, not to mention the slightly "crafty" skills like Heal, Survival, and Handle Animal etc would all be pretty useful, and one could imagine setting high DCs (to justify a large amount of ranks) for tasks that require assisting large groups of people quickly, or performing work under challenging conditions.  Arguably this is what leaving skills like Craft/Profession in as skills that can be improved accomplishes.  Some groups - your hack and slash dungeon-crawling types - can just ignore the Craft skills entirely, but in a different GM's game having a craft might be seen as much more useful.

I guess that is sort of the direction I am looking at when I want to design a system, what kind of game do you want to play.  I also like it when there are mundane skills available to match the class ideals and to fit a class into a local ideal, such as a Chevalier or Rake.

To me, the most salient argument against skill ranks is how much two characters can diverge, and how difficult this can make game balance. Even at first level, one character may have a -2 modifier to the controlling stat and no ranks, giving a -2 to the roll. Another character may have +5 from their stat, a rank in the skill, and, let's say, some kind of racial/class/whatever bonus giving a further +2, resulting in +8. This is divergence of 10; i.e., half of a d20, and this is at level 1. (It's even worse in Pathfinder with the +3 to class skills!)

Of course, the problem can be mitigated in play by giving each character a chance to shine at their own unique talents and letting the party succeed as a whole based on the roll of the best member, but this is just circumventing it, and the actual mathematical issue is still there. Systems like Pathfinder's chase mechanics where every character in the chase has to pass certain checks at certain DCs tend to completely fall apart.

Quote from: sparkletwist
To me, the most salient argument against skill ranks is how much two characters can diverge, and how difficult this can make game balance. Even at first level, one character may have a -2 modifier to the controlling stat and no ranks, giving a -2 to the roll. Another character may have +5 from their stat, a rank in the skill, and, let's say, some kind of racial/class/whatever bonus giving a further +2, resulting in +8. This is divergence of 10; i.e., half of a d20, and this is at level 1. (It's even worse in Pathfinder with the +3 to class skills!)

Of course, the problem can be mitigated in play by giving each character a chance to shine at their own unique talents and letting the party succeed as a whole based on the roll of the best member, but this is just circumventing it, and the actual mathematical issue is still there. Systems like Pathfinder's chase mechanics where every character in the chase has to pass certain checks at certain DCs tend to completely fall apart.

well, that is always the cost/benefit. 
when you play a game that opens up individualizing the character, you also lose the ability to balance them as easily across most dimensions.  in some ways, it can be great.  I have obviously taken this to ridiculous lengths.  But I also see your point, and it is a real decision for a GM in how they want to balance the game.

In theory I like the idea of assigning skill points, but as Sparkle just points out, the divergence in D&D was often too high. As was the case for most math in D&D... The level system itself creates such an enormous gap in power between high level and low level characters. If you look at the system like Shadowrun (speaking 3e, which is what I played the most), where skills typically run from 1 to 6, with 7 being near miraculous. And sure, someone with five dice is way better than someone with three, but the absolute variance is not so great.

Quote from: Matt Larkin (author)
In theory I like the idea of assigning skill points, but as Sparkle just points out, the divergence in D&D was often too high. As was the case for most math in D&D... The level system itself creates such an enormous gap in power between high level and low level characters. If you look at the system like Shadowrun (speaking 3e, which is what I played the most), where skills typically run from 1 to 6, with 7 being near miraculous. And sure, someone with five dice is way better than someone with three, but the absolute variance is not so great.

granularity, baby.
The solution to many problems.

Quote from: sparkletwistOf course, the problem can be mitigated in play by giving each character a chance to shine at their own unique talents and letting the party succeed as a whole based on the roll of the best member, but this is just circumventing it, and the actual mathematical issue is still there. Systems like Pathfinder's chase mechanics where every character in the chase has to pass certain checks at certain DCs tend to completely fall apart.

This can definitely be a problem, although in my experience in practice there's a core cluster of skills - Acrobatics, Perception, Climb - that most people tend to sink at least a few points into whether or not they have a lot of points to spend.  Still, it requires careful DMing.  When I DM Pathfinder (which is a lot) I tend to think on two levels when setting DCs.

The first is a sort of "whole party" set of DCs for things like circumventing obstacles in a chase, scaling a cliff in the wilderness, jumping a chasm in a series of caverns, making saves against weather, keeping balanced across a slippery ledge, and that kind of thing.  I usually set such DCs in the 10-20 range, which means that everyone - even those with no ranks in a skill - have a decent chance of succeeding, especially with liberal use of "aid another."  Certain characters who are really good at the things in question are going to breeze through these challenges, but that's OK with me; there's still a sense of tension (often there are consequences for failure), and in fact those who are skilled often get to help those who aren't, creating a nice feeling of group cooperation.  I also try to include multiple paths round obstacles wherever possible so that different skills could be used to circumvent a given obstacle, and I try to include environmental details that, if utilized, lower the DCs of checks.  Like, for example, I might put in my notes something like "jumping the rift requires a DC 20 Acrobatics check, but if the characters get clever and use the vines to swing across, lower it to DC 10."

The second type of check I think of as a specialist check, the sort of check that the whole party doesn't have to make, only a single character, in which case the disparity between characters isn't a negative - in fact, you want a disparity between characters for these checks, because you reward the character who sunk time and skill points into the appropriate skills.  I tend to make these DCs much, much higher, because only one player needs to overcome them.  Locks, traps, knowledge checks, deciphering runes, tight gaps with treasure or a lever or something on the other side, that sort of thing.  For these checks, I think there are actually some advantages in having a big divergence between characters, and a system without such disparities would be less satisfying.  If everyone can do more or less everything more or less adequately, well, we're back at homogeneity (and boredom).  No one feels special.

@Steerpike, I agree. That's a good way to handle it.

I also think it's not too bad of a solution, although I'd like to add two caveats:

- This generally requires designing the adventure around the party's capabilities: the DCs of the "whole party" situations have to be kept in check, and the "specialist" situations have to be set up so that they're tied to a skill that someone in the party actually has. I don't think this is a huge problem for most people, as there is still a lot of flexibility and possibility to include organic challenges, but ardent "simulationists" who like to insist their world is completely objective and detached from the players may have a problem with it. It might also start to become a problem as the party rises in level and the general level of challenge goes up-- it feels a bit silly to be breaking into the higher tiers of play and still be dealing with "mundane" DC 10 challenges, and the fact that they're still trouble for someone can turn what was once a feeling of cooperation into a feeling of dragging around dead weight.

- Nothing you've suggested actually necessitates the use of a skill rank system. It requires a system where there is some disparity in capability, but I agree with you that some is needed so that characters can feel good about what they've invested in. However, I think the way that the amount of disparity can be both quite wide and quite open-ended is still not a good thing. Rather, a fairly simple approach that could nonetheless work well enough would be to decide the amount of disparity you think is "good" between being trained and untrained, and make that the standard. Then, your two situations would work as follows:

• "Whole party" checks: Trained characters pass easily, untrained characters are challenged.
• "Specialist" checks: Trained characters are challenged, untrained characters don't have a chance.

... which is essentially how they work anyway. :grin:

As an aside, I sort of dislike those "core cluster" skills because, if everybody needs them, they're just a point tax, and it's a regressive tax at that: Rogues and Wizards usually have skill points to spare, while meanwhile Fighters are already sort of screwed due to their low skill points. So if there are skills they simply must put ranks into or they'll risk being pushed even further down into uselessness, it prevents them from diversifying and sort of reinforces the already large problem that Fighters are simply not good at anything other than dealing damage.

Some interesting points!

Quote from: sparkletwistThis generally requires designing the adventure around the party's capabilities: the DCs of the "whole party" situations have to be kept in check, and the "specialist" situations have to be set up so that they're tied to a skill that someone in the party actually has. I don't think this is a huge problem for most people, as there is still a lot of flexibility and possibility to include organic challenges, but ardent "simulationists" who like to insist their world is completely objective and detached from the players may have a problem with it. It might also start to become a problem as the party rises in level and the general level of challenge goes up-- it feels a bit silly to be breaking into the higher tiers of play and still be dealing with "mundane" DC 10 challenges, and the fact that they're still trouble for someone can turn what was once a feeling of cooperation into a feeling of dragging around dead weight.

This often ocurs to me as well (the "tailor-made" thing).  What I sometimes try to do is to include challenges that I know the party cannot deal with, and then include NPCs somewhere who can help them.  But even this isn't really pure "simulationism" in the classic sense of the term.

I do gradually scale the DCs of the "general" challenges, because as I said most PCs (in my experience) usually try to pick up a few ranks of Climb, Acrobatics, Perception, and possibly Swim as time goes on - these core physical skills end up being used by almost everyone at some point.  Spells also help to mitigate these problems, too - like, once a caster gets Fly they can just flit over chasms or rivers or pits, once they get Gaseous Form tight areas aren't really a problem, etc.  It requires thought and careful tinkering with DCs, but this is sort of what the DM's job is supposed to be.

Quote from: sparkletwistNothing you've suggested actually necessitates the use of a skill rank system. It requires a system where there is some disparity in capability, but I agree with you that some is needed so that characters can feel good about what they've invested in. However, I think the way that the amount of disparity can be both quite wide and quite open-ended is still not a good thing. Rather, a fairly simple approach that could nonetheless work well enough would be to decide the amount of disparity you think is "good" between being trained and untrained, and make that the standard. Then, your two situations would work as follows:

   "Whole party" checks: Trained characters pass easily, untrained characters are challenged.
   "Specialist" checks: Trained characters are challenged, untrained characters don't have a chance.

... which is essentially how they work anyway.

There are definitely alternatives to a skill rank system, but I still don't like a simple profiency trained vs. untrained system as much as a skill rank system, because otherwise once you're trained in a skill you never get any sense of improvement in that skill.  In a system where you improve at everything else wth time and experience - combat, casting spells, saving throws, toughness - why should skills (you know, those things that in real life actually improve with practice and experience) not be improvable?  Does it really make sense for your HP to improve with experience but your skills as a tracker, woodsman, healer, climber, or sneak to stay static?  I want to distinguish between an acolyte thief new to the guild and the master who can melt into the shadows, or the seasoned man of the mountains who can glance at some tracks and tell you everything about their makers and a still-green scout.  I want to distinguish between the quack apothecary with a few rudiments of medicine and the master healer, or the apprentice blacksmith and the grizzled dwarven ubersmith.  A strict trained/untrained system doesn't allow this; all of the "novice" characters in the above exampels are trained, they're just not masters yet.

Even putting this common sense/simulationist line of thinking aside, I like the feeling of PCs being able to take on a series of escalating non-combat challenges of increasing difficulty and dering-do as they level.  In a straight proficient/non-proficient system, where you either are traiend in a skill or not and there's no numeric range/spectrum/granularity, once you've acquired a skill you're suddenly capable of taking on any challenge germane to that skill, with no room for upward mobility.  

I'm not sure I really understand your unease about a wide/"open-ended" disparity in abilities between classes.  There's a very wide disparity in spell-casting ability between a fighter and a wizard, and a slightly-smaller-but-still-wide disparity in spellcasting ability between a ranger and a wizard.  Likewise there's a wide disparity in healing ability between a wizard and a cleric, and a slightly-smaller-but-still-wide disparity in healing ability between a bard and a cleric.  So what's wrong with having a wide disaprity in lockpicking and stealth ability between a fighter and a rogue?  Or a wide disparity in tracking and woodsmanship between a ranger and a paladin?

Quote from: sparkletwistAs an aside, I sort of dislike those "core cluster" skills because, if everybody needs them, they're just a point tax, and it's a regressive tax at that: Rogues and Wizards usually have skill points to spare, while meanwhile Fighters are already sort of screwed due to their low skill points. So if there are skills they simply must put ranks into or they'll risk being pushed even further down into uselessness, it prevents them from diversifying and sort of reinforces the already large problem that Fighters are simply not good at anything other than dealing damage.

Well, to me, part of the appeal of being a Rogue is having skill points to spare.  The skills are one of the mechanical draws of the class, like a Barbarian's high HD, or the Fighter's many feats, or a Sorcerer's spontaneous casting.  It's also a major draw of playing a Human in 3.X instead of the more exotic races.

The nice thing about skill ranks is they don't demand you put all of your skill points into the same skills at every level.  What I mean by the core cluster idea is that, as time goes on, most players occasionally dump a point or two into those core skills, not that everyone has to level them like mad to keep up with the exacting demands of the "skill tax."  And the nice thing about 3.X is that Fighters and the like can diversify in part by taking non-Fighter levels - you know, the old "dip" approach.  Doubtless this approach has its abuses, but it kind of makes sense that a clunky Fighter who finds that his martial training isn't sufficient in the adventuring life picks up a few pointers from the Rogue or Ranger, or a few spells from the Wizard, represented by a level in those classes.