Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yes it did, and the fact that we can play the game and have fun without cooperation being necessary proves the RuneQuest rule wrong.
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Yes it did, and the fact that we can play the game and have fun without cooperation being necessary proves the RuneQuest rule wrong.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
I agree. I prefer though, in D&D, to be flexible than have a built-in set of mechanics (aka Skill Challenge, Soft/Hard Moves on Failure...etc) as an option to use than be tied down to a particular mechanic. So sometimes I'd prefer to run it free-form, other times it might be scripted and other times I'd use a mechanic. For me every idea presented by fellow posters in this thread is just one more creative way to adjudicate things at the table or, to use @Manbearcat's description, to add to the 'primordial ooze'.
And this style of adjudication might very well be specific to D&D, maybe because the RPG lends itself to home-brewing.
Yeah, I want the players to be able to count on a relatively objectively evaluated mechanism to give them an answer to the question of whether or not what they have accomplished is enough to achieve the objective of the challenge. Nobody would quibble with this as an absolute baseline requirement for combat, so why would any other significant situation be different? Its odd that this dichotomy exists. I mean, in OD&D I think it was just a matter of a lack of a concept of a universal mechanic and the existence of wargaming based mechanics for combat, which seemed CLEARLY to need SOMETHING. I don't think other situations were excluded for a specific reason though.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
That only proves that you do not have a functioning creative relationship with your players.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
It proves that we are capable of both cooperation and playing characters separately, or even in contest with one another when appropriate. Nothing else.
It also proves that you definition of "metagaming as cheating" is far from universal.
Upthread, you were suggesting that nothing about the RQ instructions contradicted your own views. But now it turns out that there is such contradiction.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
I never claimed it was universal. I said it was the most commonly used definition(the standard definition), and it is. There are others.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
This isn't a chicken-and-the-egg scenario. The game puts no restriction on actions based on player or character knowledge. You're adding that and your solution to the problem you've created is the social contract - getting all your players to agree this is a problem and to go to the DM for his or her blessing on what the character knows before acting. All I need to do is just play the game as is.
Actions don't need justifications. Again, you're adding that and creating the problem. A player describes what he or she wants to do, that's it. It doesn't say the player need tell why.
Your perspective and the manner in which you play is the thing that is being added to the rules which creates the problem.
Sorry man. You're doing this to yourself. And, hey, if you like it, please continue doing it. But let's not pretend it's part of the game. It's just part of your group.
AbdulAlhazred
Legend
You know, I'm tired of debating with people about what they don't like. This whole thread was supposed to be about how to make D&D do certain things better, and it INSTANTLY got sidetracked by people telling us that what we wanted was not to their taste and that they felt compelled to be insulted by the way [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] drew a contrast. I'm about just talking about the subject at hand, and I thought that since I basically hacked 4e to do this stuff, here's the essential parts of what I did and why (there are plenty of other things, but they really are not very relevant to this discussion, like altering some of the math).
1. I fixed some of 'the math' so that skill/ability checks and all types of attacks actually follow the same progression in practice, and can thus be mixed together. This is probably the least important change, but it delivers on the promise of true universalism in 4e's mechanics. You can now make a skill check as an attack, it works.
2. I broke check results into graded categories, so you can have total success at a check, or limited success, or you can fail (or even fail really hard, although that distinction is less important in general and probably could be eliminated). This allows a sort of DW-esque "well, you managed to jump the chasm, but now..."
3. Everything, except combat, is a challenge. There are no 'free checks' in my game. You are either engaging in a conflict of some sort and there are stakes, or its 'free play' (interlude) which doesn't need such rules. Checks only relate to conflict as well. I guess a GM could 'play with dice' and use that in his framing, but it isn't part of the rules.
4. Players can buy successes. Using practices a player can acquire a way to buy successes on checks (which you will remember are always part of challenges). There is always a cost, and each practice allows a certain type of fictional element to be introduced into play (IE you might have a ritual which lets you fly, you can use this to create a success, but you still have to explain how it contributes). Players can also simply make the requisite checks and risk failures and thus complications, but avoid the big costs (many practices still have an initiation cost to avoid spamming).
5. Is there a 5? I'm not sure.... Oh, yeah, players can use a sort of inspiration mechanic. It is binary, you can't stockpile inspiration, you have it or you don't. You can acquire it by invoking one of your character's traits in a disadvantageous way (IE I'm forgetful, I misplaced my lock picks). You can invoke it in a positive direction in much the same way, expending your inspiration and invoking a character trait. Players can describe several traits for their character, three usually being enough, and also your other attributes could count, like race, class, etc. when plausible. Generally you can invent some narrative element, achieve a success, avoid a cost, etc. in this way, but only so often. I find it is best to reset everyone to having inspiration at the start of each session, but that could be tweaked. It is a LOT better than the 5e style of this technique!
I think that's about it in basic terms. This makes a much more explicitly narratively driven type of game out of 4e. You could eschew all of this and basically play the same way, but I find that players have a bit easier time when there are explicit guidelines.
1. I fixed some of 'the math' so that skill/ability checks and all types of attacks actually follow the same progression in practice, and can thus be mixed together. This is probably the least important change, but it delivers on the promise of true universalism in 4e's mechanics. You can now make a skill check as an attack, it works.
2. I broke check results into graded categories, so you can have total success at a check, or limited success, or you can fail (or even fail really hard, although that distinction is less important in general and probably could be eliminated). This allows a sort of DW-esque "well, you managed to jump the chasm, but now..."
3. Everything, except combat, is a challenge. There are no 'free checks' in my game. You are either engaging in a conflict of some sort and there are stakes, or its 'free play' (interlude) which doesn't need such rules. Checks only relate to conflict as well. I guess a GM could 'play with dice' and use that in his framing, but it isn't part of the rules.
4. Players can buy successes. Using practices a player can acquire a way to buy successes on checks (which you will remember are always part of challenges). There is always a cost, and each practice allows a certain type of fictional element to be introduced into play (IE you might have a ritual which lets you fly, you can use this to create a success, but you still have to explain how it contributes). Players can also simply make the requisite checks and risk failures and thus complications, but avoid the big costs (many practices still have an initiation cost to avoid spamming).
5. Is there a 5? I'm not sure.... Oh, yeah, players can use a sort of inspiration mechanic. It is binary, you can't stockpile inspiration, you have it or you don't. You can acquire it by invoking one of your character's traits in a disadvantageous way (IE I'm forgetful, I misplaced my lock picks). You can invoke it in a positive direction in much the same way, expending your inspiration and invoking a character trait. Players can describe several traits for their character, three usually being enough, and also your other attributes could count, like race, class, etc. when plausible. Generally you can invent some narrative element, achieve a success, avoid a cost, etc. in this way, but only so often. I find it is best to reset everyone to having inspiration at the start of each session, but that could be tweaked. It is a LOT better than the 5e style of this technique!
I think that's about it in basic terms. This makes a much more explicitly narratively driven type of game out of 4e. You could eschew all of this and basically play the same way, but I find that players have a bit easier time when there are explicit guidelines.
Maxperson
Morkus from Orkus
Yes it does. That's the entire point of skills designed to let the PCs figure things out, spells to figure things out, and class abilities to figure things out. If the player is playing a Ranger whose favored enemy is fiends, he cannot use player knowledge to just "know" the weaknesses of the fiend in front of him. If the player does that, he is breaking the rule on favored enemies. That rule has him roll to recall such information. The DM can just say yes and avoid the roll, but the player cannot. The game also lists intelligence as the ability score governing PC memory, which is a clear indicator that their memories are not infallible, and is therefore a restriction on character knowledge.
Unless you are playing a PC that is insane, and often if you are, actions have reasons for why they are done. Those reasons are important.
iserith
Magic Wordsmith
Are you referring to D&D 5e? If you are, none of that is true. At all. A player can say what the character thinks, which (to build on your example) might include what he or she thinks about the weaknesses of fiends. He or she can then have the character act accordingly.
Here's the problem though: The player, and thus the character, might be wrong. The player might have gotten the weaknesses of demons mixed up with devils (oops!). Or the DM might have changed the stat block or added environmental complications that make exploiting the weaknesses risky. So the smart play is to try to recall what the character knows about fiends or deduce its weaknesses from available clues first to verify these assumptions before taking action. Or use a spell or class ability to do the same. Otherwise the player risks being wrong and all that may entail in context.
These skill proficiencies, spells, and class abilities are there for that reason, not to justify your playstyle. What's more, if you just stop adding your justification/DM blessing requirements to the game and change the odd stat block from time to time, you will achieve the same goal of reducing "metagaming" by just playing the game instead of relying on the social contract to change behavior. You'll even get rid of the "metagaming" you end up creating by the whole process of the DM and player establishing sufficient knowledge to take action.
Sure, there can be reasons. But they needn't be elucidated. The player need only describe a goal and approach to act. My ranger doesn't have to tell you why he's using his silvered dagger to kill this devil right here. He just does it.
Similar Threads
