Scenario: Q&A

[dmw71]

I'm imagining these being very short trial-runs of the various systems—measured in weeks. To achieve something that succinct, a degree of artifice is necessary.

However, if people are thinking longer term, it's a whole different ball of wax.

I think the goal here is an emphasis on short-term, deliberate games. In a way, there doesn't have to be a well-developed story with plots and twists.

At least for me, my thought was to sample the different rule systems just long enough to get a flavor or taste of how they handle common situations differently than D&D.


Ideally, however, a player or group in one of these "simulations" could like it enough that they'd want to formally start up a new game, outside of this scenario experiment. That would be the longer-term experience.

[ffilz]

One thing to consider is if running a gauntlet style contests will be interesting in various rule systems.

Ultimately that's going to be one of the tricky things about a universal scenario, what is actually interesting to resolve in a given system? A scenario that doesn't involve a combat of some sort is not going to engage some rule systems very much (like OD&D for example). Or you have things like lock picking that can only be done by one type of character in some systems (again OD&D thieves).

[ffilz]

I'm imagining these being very short trial-runs of the various systems—measured in weeks. To achieve something that succinct, a degree of artifice is necessary.

However, if people are thinking longer term, it's a whole different ball of wax.

I think the goal here is an emphasis on short-term, deliberate games. In a way, there doesn't have to be a well-developed story with plots and twists.

At least for me, my thought was to sample the different rule systems just long enough to get a flavor or taste of how they handle common situations differently than D&D.


Ideally, however, a player or group in one of these "simulations" could like it enough that they'd want to formally start up a new game, outside of this scenario experiment. That would be the longer-term experience.

I agree, my impression of the purpose of this exercise is sort of a one shot that allows folks to experience and compare different games.

[dmw71]

Maybe, if we're even considering running with a "gauntlet-type" scenario, we could take a step back and focus on the obstacles/challenges first.

And not obstacles, as in events in the gauntlet itself, but obstacles that we (as we work to develop this) will face to accommodate the different genres, and even challenges within the same genre.

For instance:

Fantasy
How can a series of tests be conducted that will --

Non-Fantasy


-- actually...

• What if, for every game, we create a significant number of challenges.
• Then, each player will need to register for a fixed number of challenges.
  • This could/would depend on the genre and game system, and whether they use classes (in the D&D sense), but we could design a number of different challenges built with a particular class in mind.
    Say 5 per class.
    
    Then each character would need to pick two or three challenges to compete in. You may get some dex-based fighters competing against rogue types in archery-based challenges, for instance.
• The characters will receive scores based on their performances.
  • Then this will be tricky! Maybe keep the scoring system low -- a 1-5 scale, maybe? Where the more difficult the challenge, the higher the score you would receive for succeeding.
• The highest score wins.

And how would "social" challenges be built into the gauntlet? Negotiate your way past someone/something, maybe?

Honestly, my head is starting to hurt just trying to think of all the different variables we'd need to account for.

But...

What I do like about it is the targeted challenges. Meaning, that for whatever type of specific challenge we're looking to test, a challenge could be built to target it. And, considering this is intended to be more of an experiment/playground and not necessarily a story-based campaign, players would have less freedom of choice over what challenges they encounter, but total freedom in how they attempt to overcome each challenge.

In other words, I'm thinking definitely more railroad than sandbox.

[dmw71]

In other words, I'm thinking definitely more railroad than sandbox.

Along these lines, what about a simple "dungeon" the group will need to enter?

• One entrance. (Maybe this will close behind the party once they enter.)
• One exit on the other side.

Maybe there are no branches, and each "room" will need to be overcome in order.

Then, we can create however many rooms we need to test all the various aspects we're looking to compare.

Again, the challenge will be testing social interactions, but maybe that can happen before entering? Or there's a speaking "monster" that must be overcome before proceeding (because it blocks the next exit)?

Very linear, by design.

[GreyWolfVT]

Don't mind me I was spitballing and kind of got overly focused on that one scenario because of how interested in that type of thing I am. I do that often.

[Leitz]

Here is where my brain wandered off to

A faint morning breeze, chilly and from the west, blew a scent of...something?

This is really well-written. And it's for that reason that I reserved commenting on it yesterday and wanted to sleep on my response.

Thank you. I enjoyed wriitng it, and trying to keep it rule and genre neutral.

I think this is the type of thing the individual GM will eventually come up with on their own... from the more skeletal criteria we provide them.

Ah, and this is where I wanted to take some time before responding. I misunderstood the type of "framework" you were looking for. I'll be honest and admit that doing a series of skill challenges doesn't really appeal to me. Most games seem to be a series of "Simulus:Response" pairs linked by various decision options. I tend to focus on the context framing the actions more than the actions themselves; like "The Other Party" (Traveller Renaissance), "The Unknown Darkness" (AD&D 1e short term), and "Imperial Gambit" (Traveller Star Trek). If I run a game this winter I may use that village scene, it has potential.

I wish you luck and success in the adventure!

[dmw71]

Ah, and this is where I wanted to take some time before responding.

Ha! Well played.

I misunderstood the type of "framework" you were looking for. I'll be honest and admit that doing a series of skill challenges doesn't really appeal to me.

This whole "thing" was created very much in haste, without any real in-depth thought or consideration. Absent any hint of direction, it's not surprising in the least that there wasn't a perfect hit on the first proposal.

That's the thing, this is very much still a discussion without any formally defined outcomes. I'm not even sure everyone has the same idea of what the goal should be?

I know there's been a lot of recent chatter about a 'gauntlet' or a linear dungeon -- that's just all brainstorming. Like your initial idea; once you get it, you just get caught up in the excitement and just run with it. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we don't end up using either, but something else completely.

Like visiting a town or village. With a negotiation, which I think was the initial thought.

But...

I do think we will ultimately need to work our way towards a more streamlined outline.

Bullet points, if you will.

Everyone works differently, so maybe it will be easier for some to compose a full narrative first. Working backward to create an outline from a fully versed idea isn't too challenging, and that's fine. For others (like me), I probably prefer to outline the major points upfront, then script around them.

But I believe that the final script (or formal narrative, or box text) should probably be left to the individual GM that ultimately runs the game.


At some point, though (maybe even now as I work through this response?), we're going to need to really iron out the requirements and expectations of this experiment. I just don't want to stifle anyone's creativity by saying this is what must be done. Not so early in the process.

---

Anyway, hopefully, everyone can agree that at the very least we want to put the different rule systems through both a combat situation and a social encounter.

---

Yes, those two broad topics will need to be broken down into more specifics (e.g. melee and ranged combat, intimidating versus persuading a guard, etc...).


But we will also need to formally decide upon will be any other specific situations we want to test.

Different tasks that utilize character abilities (whether as ability checks or skill checks or something else) should probably fall into these "other situations" that we plan for:

• How would a character pick a lock, for instance? Or,
• How would a character estimate the worth of a gem before they attempt to sell it?

Then there are physical challenges, like jumping, climbing, or swimming.

And maybe things like:

• How long can a character hold their breath?
• What happens if a character gets poisoned?

We obviously won't be able to come up with a single scenario that nails every single requirement perfectly for every game system, but hopefully, we can work to identify a specific list of situations we want to test in all games.

Maybe that should be the whole goal of this scenario planning phase?

To identify maybe a dozen or so must-have situations that the GM needs to include in whatever they run. Then the GM will build a scenario for the simulation they're going to run that includes all the items in that list.


I think it will be really cool to see an apples-to-apples comparison of how even a handful of games resolve the same situations. Ideally, a handful of games with very different mechanics.


Just my thoughts.

[Leitz]

Ah, and this is where I wanted to take some time before responding.

Ha! Well played.

You gave me a good model.

Look at the responses you have so far. While I personally am not in favor of the competing NPC group, the majority of active contributors have voiced support for Pulpatoon's framework. While that may not have been your original vision, in the end we all want to provide something that others find useful. You've struck a chord there, so I'd say run with it. Right now the "test of skills" idea is running, but you're probably going to hit the issue that most of the early games had little in the way of social interaction. My guess is great-grandchildren of the ancients will have the same issue, so that might be a thing.

The games are all stimulus:response, and all of them cover close combat and ranged combat. Most of them cover sneaking around and casting spells. There's probably a curve to track on the matrix of "sorts of actions there are rules for" and "how many games have rules for those skills". For example, of three dozen games, three dozen have rules for melee with weapons. Probably at least two dozen have something about "firing into a melee", and maybe half a dozen have "mental powers like psionics". How many have "saving throws modified by experience/level or species"? How many are clear on called shots and provide extra damage or effect? Those are going to be the differentiators that folks need to play with, and thus the stimuli you want to consider in your testing.

There are some meta game questions, too. Like "how long can a character survive between becoming combat ineffective and becoming non-saveable" and "How free form is the character generation system?"

Magic systems are important too. FGU's Bushido and AEG's 7th Sea fall into the "what we you smoking when you came up with that?" Chivalry and Sorcery has this thing where you could combine spells; there was a way to do a 3,000 HP fireball. Other systems like HERO and GURPS are more flexible, though HERO is more heroic.

[Rex]

I think condensing into bullet points would be ideal. Something like this maybe.

Rescue!
* Enter a cave, knowing there is a secret door present. They must locate, disarm any traps and open.
* Must travel through a series of physical obstacles/challenges. Rope bridges, underground river, tight rope, whatever.
* Must face a magical/psionic/intellectual challenge as fits the party.
* Combat, make it challenging.
* They rescue whoever but they are injured/sick/cursed beyond the parties capabilities to deal with, they must rush them to a local temple to negotiate for them to be healed.

[tibbius]

On a competing NPC group, there are a few reasons I'd not use one.

• Their timeline is artificial, there is no "fog of adventure" since the DM knows what's going on.
• A smart PC group would be aware of competitors, and thus would scope out the other group. For a scenario, that's a lot of prep-work on the part of the players and the DM. In effect, its own game.
• A peer level NPC group could significantly weaken the PCs by causing the expenditure of consumable spells, ammo, and healing.
• Artificially pushing up the time-line by competition makes the smart move of "recon the threat before charging in" less likely to happen. In effect, it pushes the PC group to a game of pure chance vice actual research, planning, and preparation.
• It's possible that the PC group could enlist/coerce/charm the NPC group into participation. While fun, that means any well practiced PC group is going to have a major dynamic changer and someone will spend much of the game as a manager, not fighter/mage/investigator.

While I generally agree with these points, I marked in OOC color the one that I see from a different angle.

I think it's very telling how, or to what degree, a ruleset can support, encourage, or hinder player characters promoting win-win solutions.

[tibbius]

I think condensing into bullet points would be ideal. Something like this maybe.

Rescue!
* Enter a cave, knowing there is a secret door present. They must locate, disarm any traps and open.
* Must travel through a series of physical obstacles/challenges. Rope bridges, underground river, tight rope, whatever.
* Must face a magical/psionic/intellectual challenge as fits the party.
* Combat, make it challenging.
* They rescue whoever but they are injured/sick/cursed beyond the parties capabilities to deal with, they must rush them to a local temple to negotiate for them to be healed.

I liked Pulpatoon's idea. I like this even more. It retains a social challenge, which ends up being determinative of success - just as are all the other challenges. It's more streamlined than Pulpatoon's scenario.

It's also applicable across genres.

For the physical obstacles I would propose traversing a narrow high space, squirming through a tight crawlspace, and jumping or swinging among sparse supports to cross above a water / lava hazard. (American Ninja Warrior ... our kids loved that grown up version of Don't Touch the Floor).

I would have two combats. One weaker group blocking the entrance, and a boss or powerful group guarding the prisoner. The weaker group would be melee-only (low ceiling, poor lighting, bottleneck entrance) and the boss or powerful group would initiate at missile range (breath weapon? thrown stones? lightning? crossbows? musketoons?) but would retreat to cover so that they would need to be finished up close.

Edit to add: could be any confined structure, not just a cave. Might be interesting to have a visible "side entrance" that's difficult to access but could permit bypassing some other known obstacle. Maybe that's one of the possible physical challenges, and just from which option you choose that gives an idea about what the rules encourage.

Edit again to add more: Instead of a secret door, maybe a secret latch, and finding it to open the door lets you bypass one of the physical obstacles?

[ffilz]

Let's not get too hung up on how many obstacles or even if there are any. For some systems, certain types of obstacles may not be very interesting. Also, let's not create a linear adventure where one failed roll ends the adventure. I would suggest obstacles might be a way to bypass a minor combat or social encounter.

But we also need to take care to not expect too many (or to few) combats depending on system.

[Pulpatoon]

It might be helpful to clarify what our objectives for the scenarios(s) is/are before we get too caught up in the specifics.

Outcome: We want a body of players to be able to compare a variety of different rulesets.

• For this, we need a short scenario, so that any given ruleset isn't too much of a time commitment.
• We need a scenario-template that establishes enough consistency that meaningful comparison is possible.
• We need a scenario-template that is flexible enough to allow for different rules, genres, and play styles.
• We need a scenario that can be rearranged and reskinned enough to allow for replayability without becoming rote.
• The scenario should offer opportunity to test and compare consistent elements of rpgs (role-play, combat, overcoming obstacles, etc.)
• The scenario should not assume specific player solutions, but present obstacles that invite players to engage with the ruleset in open-ended play (e.g. you don't have to fight the golem if you'd rather sneak around it, or charm it, or lure it into a trap).

Possible Scenario Elements:

• A social/rp challenge (negotiate, persuade, intimidate, or deceive a group of NPCs)
• Combat (1. Group opponents; 2. Strong individual opponent)
• Investigation challenge (hidden door, hidden objects, clues, etc.)
• Puzzle/Trap/Environmental challenge (any sort of open-ended creative problem-solving obstacle)
• A magical/psychic/weird science/genre-whatever element
• Movement challenge (stealth, chase and pursuit, etc.)
• Rest and recuperation

How many elements can the scenario contain before it becomes over-long?

How about the five-room dungeon as a template?

• Entrance/Guardian
• Puzzle or RP Challenge
• Setback/Trick/Obstacle
• Bossfight
• Reward/Twist

The beauty of the five room dungeon is how flexible it is. It could be a traditional dungeon with actual rooms, or it could be a point-crawl, or five individuals in a bar. Would something like this give us enough meaningful points of comparison?

[tibbius]

For comparison of the systems, as Pulpatoon pointed out, it's important to have a single consistent scenario to which we attempt to apply each system. If it turns out that parts of the scenario are more or less interesting in different systems, that's not a problem with the scenario or with the systems. It's just information about the systems.

Pulpatoon's take on scenario length seems valid. We want these to be "quick" runs that let us get a feel for how each system works, either by playing or by reading through others' playing.

5rd-for-scenario-simulator.png (60.27 KiB) Viewed 450 times

What about this? ^^

Edit to add: The "Exit" block could be rp / combat / obstacle depending if any of those hasn't been done yet.

[Pulpatoon]

I feel like this is starting to coalesce!

[tibbius]

I feel like this is starting to coalesce!

Drawings: The most important part of an invention disclosure.

[Rex]

I think we are making good progress for sure. Maybe we could go even simpler and just say use the 5 room dungeon model. List 10 or so options and have the DM choose the 5? Maybe have 1 or 2 fixed and choose 3?

[ffilz]

I think the flow diagram is a good place to start. I also like the idea of offering a menu of challenges from which we pick what makes sense for the system. Labeling some as required or at least strongly suggested would be a good idea. The replayability will come from the fact that each system is different and the particular challenges chosen. The comparability will come from comparing the common challenges across systems.

[tibbius]

I have a scenario that serendipitously fits that flow chart pretty well.

It's about stealing a monkey from a Baron's townhouse in a well-patrolled residential district.