Wednesday, 2nd May, 2012, 08:09 PM #1
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
On 5E Skills (aka How Game System Affects Immersion)
This is a topic I've found myself discussing in various forms over the last couple of days. I'm not sure why it's come up so much right now, but I've found myself discussing it in more than once context - a couple of threads here at EN World, an extended Twitter conversation last night, and more. So this is an atempt to compile my thoughts on the matter, partly cobbled together from my previous, scattered, incoherent posts both on Twitter and in the following threads:
I think this may be a contentious discussion; it's important to understand this is just my opinion on my games. I'll also note that I know no more than anyone else, and less than many - I haven't seen any playtest material or been given any special insight into D&D Next. So this is all conjecture based on the little we do know.
The subject, in broad strokes, is the way a game's rules and how they're presented can influence the very way a player interacts with a game and a game world. One just has to look at the many different fantasy RPGs on the market to see that different rules structures directly influence how a game is played - not just in terms of the rules being used, but also the way players immerse themselves, the language they use, and so on. These things are all subtly nudged - sometimes intentionally, sometimes not - in one direction or another by the way the rules are presented to you.
Now, of course, I know that this is not a universal rule. I know that you, reading this right now, are a superlative DM and none of the following examples would EVER find their way onto YOUR game table. You're just that damn good! I, unfortunately, am merely average. Maybe I'm the only average DM in a world of DMing geniuses (which I guess makes them average and me poor) but I suspect that what I'm about to talk about is not a rare occurrence.
One common criticism levelled at D&D 4th Edition is that the game tends towards the "gamist" - by that, I mean that players all too often think in terms of the game rules rather than in terms of their actions within the game world. So, rather than threatening the orc by crushing a mug in your hand (an example Rodney Thompson used in a recent column), the player "uses the Intimidate skill". This extends beyond skills into the power structure of D&D 4th Edition, but in my mind it's to do with a particular aspect of player psychology: that when presented with a list of things you can do, you are instinctively predisposed to simply choose an option from that list. You're not interacting in an immersive sense with the game world; you're choosing an option from your character sheet.
Moreover, you're not choosing an action, you're choosing which rule you will use. You're deciding to use this skill or that power. This is exacerbated by a list of skills which are - on the whole - almost verbs in their naming convention. So by extension you're choosing from a finite list of actions defined by the skills on your character sheet.
I don't think this is limited to 4E, by the way, although it tends to be exaggerated by finite power lists and skill challenges in that system. 3.x suffers from it, too. I think (if I understand what I'm seeing in recent blog posts and columns on DDI) that the structure of 5E will tend away from it, though, as I'll explain shortly.
As I mentioned earlier, the usual response to this is "never at MY table!" - and if that's your response, then I envy you. You're a better DM than me. If you're immune to the effect of rules structures, I suspect you're a rare beast, albeit a lucky one. It also probably doesn't matter which game you buy; for many of us, though, different game systems result in different styles of play.
So why do I think 5E is going to improve this aspect of gameplay? I think the two following things combine in a subtle way to affect that trend:
- Skills are ability checks (with modifiers for an open-ended list of things you might be good at), not a finite list of 20 "doing words" like "Intimidate";
- A check is not always needed, depending on the ablity score.
It's a subtle difference, but I feel it can tie into how a player sees and interacts with the rules structure. I'm not saying it magically overrides a particular group's playstyle; just that it has a net average little nudge towards descriptions rather than skill names.
But - and here's the kicker. None of that matters; it won't often come up, because this structure makes it difficult for players to declare when ability checks are needed. This ties in to the other clever part - not every action needs a check: some of it you can do automatically with a good ability score, and therefore the player himself doesn't know whether a check is required unless the DM tells him so. This is a change from 3E/4E, where easy actions just had a low DC - technically a check was still needed, so the player knew he could declare he was making a Climb check and that the DC was (probably) 5. In 5E, the check is dispensed with for certain actions, but the player doesn't know.
This means we have a player not being able to say "I make a Strength check". He doesn't know that a Strength check is needed. If ability checks are only called for by the DM in response to appropriate input from the player, the player has no choice but to say "I crush a mug."
He can't say "I make a Strength check" because the DM replies "I'll decide when you need to make a Strength check, thank you very much; now what are you doing?"
Player: "Oh, I'm crushing a mug."
DM: [knowing the character has 17 Strength and the mug is flimsy] "You're a strong guy; the mug crushes easily."
In the latter case, no check was even needed. In some cases, a check might be needed. But the player is no position to determine whether or not an ability check is required, so is unable to declare he's making one. All he can do is describe his action and wait for the DM to either tell him what happens or ask for an ability check. The player doesn't say "I'm making an ability check", because unless the DM specifically asks for one - he's not making an ability check.
Don't get me wrong - it's not absolute. It wont' magically change peoples' speech patterns. It's a nudge, not mind control. Things like "I'm using STR to indimidate him" - while of course you could still utter those words, presenting the rules in this way will help tend to encourage people to say "I'm crushing a mug" instead.
That's gotten a bit rambly. A shorter version is to say that I think that the system is being designed to encourage players to take an action in the game world rather than select a game mechanic.
I fully realise that the games currently advise you to do the former; that that's how they're intended to be used; and that good DMs may not be as affected by it as, say, people like me. But I strongly feel that the game system itself has as important - if not more important - an effect on how the player approaches the world as does the DMing advice in the book (and the examples of play and so on).
That's why we like different game systems. They feel different. Otherwise every fantasy RPG would feel exactly the same, and we all know that's not the case.
Now cue responses full of people describing the superior - correct! - way in which they do it, and why anyone who doesn't is dumb.
Last edited by Morrus; Wednesday, 2nd May, 2012 at 08:16 PM.
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Defender (Lvl 8)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Concord NC
ø Ignore Gargoyle
My only concern with the emphasis on ability scores is that ability scores are already too important with regards to which race is chosen, which magical items are desired, etc.
By placing even more importance on ability scores, I fear we will see even more characters starting with 20 in their primary ability, and dumping everything else, and that parties will feature one guy who does all the lifting, one who does all the talking, one who does all the thinking, etc.
Still, I can't think of a better way to do it. Detailed skills rules really have gotten too much attention from the rules in the last few editions and I would prefer this to what we have now.
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
- Join Date
- Aug 2007
ø Ignore Crazy Jerome
There's a different way of playing where this isn't so much of an issue. It isn't so much a question of better or worse DMing, as it is of the difference itself, which comes with its own strengths and weaknesses. Namely, if the group is not particular interested in immersion, per se, then explict, narrative, metagaming (whatever you want to call it) elements used to move the story forward don't have much of this issue.
So your statement about average DMs to me is a bit like saying, "I'm having a bit of trouble with my backhand, and my serve has lost some of its speed. Other sports enthusiasts may not have much trouble with this, but I guess they are just better." Meanwhile, I'm over here trying to determine a faster, cleaner way to clear hurdles or working on my switch hitting.
That's not to say that language doesn't have an effect on the non-immersive style(s). I'm sure it does. I'm not so sure the effect is the same.
Myrmidon (Lvl 10)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
ø Ignore dkyle
If you tell me that you are going to use "Strength to Intimidate", in, say, 4E, I'd ask "how?", since that's not a standard usage of the rules. If you say "I crush a mug to scare them", I'd probably give a small, one-time bonus, if your STR is greater than their Charisma. But I wouldn't be comfortable simply allowing it, unless there's a clear reason why "crushing stuff" would not become a consistent way to gain a major mechanical benefit while Intimidating. If you want that, there are ways to get it, according to the rules of the game.
I think it's great that there are well defined rules a player can point to and say "I do this", confident in how it'll work. I don't like it when players have to make decisions without an understanding of what mechanics the DM will have them use to resolve their action.
Magsman (Lvl 14)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
ø Ignore Minigiant
My main fear is which open skills to be interpreted by the DM, the it all must be interpreted by the DM.
And the interpretation can change between DMs with no real rule behind some actions.
For example, the system would nudge me into having my charming scoundrel "tries to explain to the local lord that helping the party helps the lord too"
Charisma based right?
Nope. DM says "explaining is Intelligence based so roll Int". But the scoundrel has 10 Intelligence and isn't charming anymore as he fails the check.
Or the "All social is Charisma vs Wisdom" DM. Breaking the mug is still Charisma: Roll 1d20-2.
Hard skills may have created undesirable language but almost everyone understood what ability score was used if someone said "I use Climb" and "I Intimidate". Then any house rules and cornercases were dealt with early. But open interpretation to force saying actions in the world leaves a chance where every table is VASTLY different instead of slightly.
My beard is hairy.
Spellbinder (Lvl 16)
- Join Date
- Mar 2004
ø Ignore Ahnehnois
I haven't used six saves, but I've used Cha-based action points, Wis-based initiative, multiple casting stats for each class, and a sprinkling of other rules to enforce MAD. Believe me, it works.
"Clear Eyes, Full Hearts, Can't Lose"
Guide (Lvl 11)
- Join Date
- Jun 2002
- Los Angeles, California
ø Ignore Greg K
I don't consider myself a superior DM. However, I don't see why they just don't give examples of describing skills and advice to the DM on eliciting descriptions from players.
If this was 3e
Player (grabbing the dice): I intimidate him
DM: Not so fast. How is Mog intimidating him?
Player: Mog uses his great strength to crush the mug he is holding and stares menacingly at him (If the player had just stared blankly after having been asked the question, the DM could ask, "What does Mog do or say to try and intimidate him ?")
Whether or not Mog needs to make a strength roll to crush the mug is a DM decison. The DM could choose not to require a strength roll if he feels Mog is strong enough and the material is flimsy).
Now for the reaction, it would depend on whom he is intimidating. Intimidate (Str) sounds logical (see the 3.0 DMG section on using alternate alternate ability scores for skills). The DM could add a modifier or penalty to the check or DC based upon what he knows of the person being intimidated and/or Mog is well known(see DMs best friend in the DMG and note that +2/-2 is a suggestion, but modifiers can range to +/-20). Heck the 3.0 DMG talks about bonuses for being specific. The DM might decide that that the description was worth a +2 bonus on its own to the intimidate check. Then again, if the person being intimidated would just naturally be intimidated by the feat of strength, the DM might let the attempt automatically succeed.
Most players, in my experience, get the hang of being descriptive (or at least make an attempt) once they have been prompted a few times and know it is expected of them. I would rather keep skills and have the DMG give advice on eliciting description from players (giving them new tools and teaching DMs how to improve) and the PHB have some examples of providing description.
Last edited by Greg K; Thursday, 3rd May, 2012 at 04:25 PM.
MActor83% STeller75% Specialist75% Tactician 42% PGamer25% BKicker 17% CGamer 8%
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
My position was that rules structure ALSO has an effect.
Maybe not in your game. Definitely in mine, though. Players vocalise differently in different rules systems, even when those rules systems all contain advice just like that you're suggesting.
And that's what I believe WotC is trying to tap into.
Defender (Lvl 8)
- Join Date
- Oct 2009
ø Ignore Neuroglyph
As I mentioned to you via Tweet yesterday, Morrus, most of the time my players describe what their character is doing, and I tell them what appropriate skill or ability score is applicable. It definitely helps immersion over calling out "I roll my blankety-blank skill to make blank happen", and not every player I game with feels that level of comfort. But the others at the table definitely help get them thinking more in terms of immersing themselves in their role and less on the mechanics on the character sheet.
As far as your Intimidation example goes, I tend to fall back on my old Champions days for how intimidation works - like a Presence attack. To me, crushing a mug, quickdrawing a weapon, creating a small but dangerous magical effect all fall under the category of "displaying your power" and if successful, increase the chance of intimidating the opponent. In Champions, such displays would increase the damage dice of the attack, but in D&D, your display of power logically grants a situational bonus depending on how intimidating I'd judge it to be versus the target.
For instance, walking up to a blacksmith and crushing a mug in his face is likely to be scoffed off - he's a brawny guy and can do that himself. Walking up to the same guy and making some strange fire creature appear momentarily in his forge (illusory or really) is probably going to make him think you're a scary spellslinger (+2 to the Intimidation check). Likewise, the mug-crusher probably has a better chance of intimidating the scrawny bureaucrat or the portly out-of-shape merchant, because they could never display such might.
Orcus on an Off-Day (Lvl 22)
I think you're missing the point of the post though. It's not "I have this problem: how do you fix it?"; it's " This is what I think WotC is trying to do with D&D Next".
So what I'm interested in is not how other people handle it. It's: do you think I'm right about WotC's intentions?
By Sturm_Brightblade in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 5Last Post: Monday, 8th September, 2008, 03:36 PM
By wolfheart in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 2Last Post: Sunday, 3rd February, 2008, 04:28 AM
By phoenixgod2000 in forum RPGs & Tabletop Gaming DiscussionReplies: 4Last Post: Friday, 15th December, 2006, 12:48 AM
By Asmor in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 9Last Post: Tuesday, 26th September, 2006, 06:08 PM
By Stalker0 in forum D&D and PathfinderReplies: 35Last Post: Saturday, 22nd February, 2003, 11:12 PM