Player Language

[Thaumaturge]

Morrus gushed a bit on twitter about a particular bit of the design of D&DN-

[MENTION=32417]MikeM[/MENTION]earls [MENTION=25792]Trevor[/MENTION]_wotc If I understand [the] aim, no player [is] able to say "I use X ability/skill" again; design forces language "I do X action".

When 4e first came out, I attempted to get my players to say 'exploits', 'prayers', and 'spells' when referring to their characters' abilities. They nodded politely, and just used 'powers' for everything. I didn't like it, but it was the way our language changed at the table. The change came from talking to other gamers, reading stuff online, and, most importantly, reading the books.

I know this is not a big issue for some, but the way we talk about our characters' actions at the table impacts my immersion. If they can change our language to a more natural manner of speech, I will be quite pleased.

Thaumaturge.

Hopefully, Morrus doesn't mind me reprinting this here. If he does, I'll gladly remove it. (and then ask if he understands twitter is public)

 

[howandwhy99]

curiouser and curiouser

 

[rjfTrebor]

i love the clarity of 4e but i think that it might have come at the cost of the general feel of the game.

it's a really narrow path that you have to walk if you want character abilities to be perfectly clear while also being flavorful and imaginative. mixing the mechanics in with the flavor text is fine as long as it doesn't lead to ambiguity.

 

[am181d]

I'm not sure my head is quite getting this:

"I do Intimidate!"

"I do Fireball!"

"I do Sneak Attack!"

I sense there is a nuance to this that I'm missing!

"I do message board post!"

 

[Serendipity]

I sense there is a nuance to this that I'm missing!

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I thought perhaps it's because I don't 'speak twitter' that I'm missing some arcane shorthand or something. I mean, who talks like that?

 

[Incenjucar]

You're going to just get "I use X" or "I cast X" or "I activate X." I think the sheer history of the game is going to make it hard to introduce new verbs.

 

[Ranganathan]

I'm glad I'm not alone in this. I thought perhaps it's because I don't 'speak twitter' that I'm missing some arcane shorthand or something. I mean, who talks like that?

It's the difference expressed here:

"I use Intimidate."

versus

"I intimidate him."

The first is a player expressing their interaction with the rules of the game system, which is meant to express how the character interacts with the game world (re: extra layer, and 'game speak', that is naming the rules).

The second is a player expressing how their character interacts with the game world directly. What their character does in the game world rather than what bit of rules the player is engaging or bringing to bear.

You see this less with casters, "I cast fireball" is still used as it was in older editions, but the players of martial characters often say things like "I use Twin Strike", which is the player talking about game rules, rather than the player describing what the character is doing. It's an attempt to engage the game world first, game mechanics second.

 

[Minigiant]

i love the clarity of 4e but i think that it might have come at the cost of the general feel of the game.

it's a really narrow path that you have to walk if you want character abilities to be perfectly clear while also being flavorful and imaginative. mixing the mechanics in with the flavor text is fine as long as it doesn't lead to ambiguity.

A very narrow path indeed,

You can't force people to describe everthing clearly everthimg.

Maybe the first time. But eventually it'll devolve to...

"I climb"

The time required to devolve is inversely related to hunger, tiredness, and for some... beverage consumption.

 

[Tony Vargas]

IMX, the level of description players want to use when playing the game varies greatly from individual to individual. Some want to describe their actions in minute detail. Some want to go wild at a dramatic moment. Some want to crack jokes, riffing of the name or effect of the power to do something silly or make a nerd culture reference.
Many want to just make sure they're resolving their characters actions correctly.

I've seen games that try to force description or other arbitrary yardsticks of RP, either with carrot (an RP bonus) or, more rarely stick (provide a rationale the DM approves of or suffer a mechanical consequence). They are great fun for the players who were going to do it anyway or who are good at gaming the DM, and frustrating for the rest. Some players become positively disruptive chasing "RP bonuses" for instance.

It's the kind of approach that a DM should adopt only when he's quite familiar with his group. An effective option, but as a core assumption, just a way of saying "there is only one right way to play this game."

 

[tlantl]

I don't much think it matters. For me resolving the issue is the primary thing. If I want my players to put themselves in the moment I usually role play the npc's speaking to them directly, if I want to get to the dice rolling I usually narrate the encounter in third person describing the npcs actions. Most of the time it's a little of both.

When it comes to bluffs and intimidates I like to do the rolling for the player. That way they made an attempt but aren't sure of the outcome until I tell them. I really hate when a player rolls a die then tells me he was successful because he rolled high. Sometimes the best a player can do isn't close to good enough, sometimes I cheat and they can never win. I like to keep these moments secret and to do that all such moments must be kept hidden. Besides it adds to the tension.

I'm kind of glad that the skill checks are going to be ability based. I hope the numbers for the really hard stuff don't get stupid like they did in other versions of the game. No more dcs in the forties just to make a check really hard.