Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7742676" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>This has been my impression of what we were doing. However, as this is a forum dedicated primarily to D&D (and its prevailing current system), 5e (and D&D more broadly) tends to dominate that conversation and the core assumptions of many discussions. </p><p></p><p>I would think that someone with your own preferences would actually like how Fate handles this. It is up to the player to select how they take the mental stress or consequences. If they choose, for example, to take a Mild Consequence (-2) rather than the equivalent of a 2 stress box for a social contest, then they can name an Aspect that represents what happened with their character and the narrative: e.g., Royally Shamed, Riled to Anger, Dericisively Mocked, Scorned into Silence, etc. This is all player-facing. </p><p></p><p>Of course, but my point here is that rolls should also have some measure of mechanical consequences. And that opinion is obviously my own sense of <em>should</em> rather than <em>is</em>, largely because the "is" is incohesive. </p><p></p><p>For example, in 5e or PF we may ask here what does a successful Persuasion/Diplomacy check communicate or achieve? This answer should ideally be the same for both a Player Character and a Non-Player Character, as their respective Player Agents can both roll skills in the capacity of those characters. If it achieves nothing, then why roll? If there is no point rolling because the roll has no mechano-narratival weight, then why does this skill exist? And there is, IMHO, a compelling reason why the skill exists: gaps exist between player ability and player character ability. A player is not obligated to sucessfully convince a GM that they hit, nor the GM that their NPC hit the PC. There are mechanics to resolve that issue. Likewise, the inhabited character may have a higher degree of diplomatic profiency than the player-who-inhabits-the-character. That gap can create a frustrating dissonance between player and character. Social skills exist, to some degree, as a mechanical means to empower and reinforce unpersuasive players roleplaying persuasive characters to inhabit their character without relying strictly on GM fiat. But this again takes us back to an earlier question: what then does a successful Persuasion check achieve mechanically? And why can't this apply to PCs just as it does to NPCs? </p><p></p><p>Likewise, for some people, players who exceed the DC of a Persuasion/Deception check will automatically successfully persuade/deceive the subject in question. Or there are people who will refuse the results of a Deception/Bluff check made by one PC against another because "my character wouldn't believe that" despite the success of the one player and the failure of the other in this contest of rolls. But without mechanical rules to govern this, these sort of things can devolve into a childhood brawl of "you didn't hit me with your laser, because I had my impentrable force field on that blocks lasers" scenarios that I mentioned earlier. It can turn players into sore losers who reject a reality that applies to them what they apply to others in the fictive space. No character wants to be deceived, and if a player knows that another player is lying, they will go out of their way to rationalize why their character could not possibly believe the Deception/Bluff. </p><p></p><p>This is, in part, the benefit of having rules apply equally to NPCs and PCs, because the same mechanics that could resolve NPC on PC skill check issues are often the same that help resolve PC on PC issues. </p><p></p><p>Though I am sure that some are tired of me discussing Fate, I find the system to be a useful counterexample to D&D, much as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is want to use Burning Wheel or Cortex Plus as alternative examples of how they resolve similar issues. In this matter, I will say that Fate technically does not have "damage." Neither mental nor physical stress in Fate reflect "damage" or even being "hit." Stress instead is a pacing mechanic. Though here I will post an excerpt from collected Fate musings of <a href="https://www.evilhat.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Book-of-Hanz-Fate-Core-Thought-of-the-Day.pdf" target="_blank">The Book of Hanz</a>: </p><p>Though this primarily is talking about physical stress, this can also apply to mental/social stress. The point being expressed here (and expounded more elucidly) that "hitting" and "damage" are less important in Fate than the character's ability to withstand narrative stress in a scene.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7742676, member: 5142"] This has been my impression of what we were doing. However, as this is a forum dedicated primarily to D&D (and its prevailing current system), 5e (and D&D more broadly) tends to dominate that conversation and the core assumptions of many discussions. I would think that someone with your own preferences would actually like how Fate handles this. It is up to the player to select how they take the mental stress or consequences. If they choose, for example, to take a Mild Consequence (-2) rather than the equivalent of a 2 stress box for a social contest, then they can name an Aspect that represents what happened with their character and the narrative: e.g., Royally Shamed, Riled to Anger, Dericisively Mocked, Scorned into Silence, etc. This is all player-facing. Of course, but my point here is that rolls should also have some measure of mechanical consequences. And that opinion is obviously my own sense of [I]should[/I] rather than [I]is[/I], largely because the "is" is incohesive. For example, in 5e or PF we may ask here what does a successful Persuasion/Diplomacy check communicate or achieve? This answer should ideally be the same for both a Player Character and a Non-Player Character, as their respective Player Agents can both roll skills in the capacity of those characters. If it achieves nothing, then why roll? If there is no point rolling because the roll has no mechano-narratival weight, then why does this skill exist? And there is, IMHO, a compelling reason why the skill exists: gaps exist between player ability and player character ability. A player is not obligated to sucessfully convince a GM that they hit, nor the GM that their NPC hit the PC. There are mechanics to resolve that issue. Likewise, the inhabited character may have a higher degree of diplomatic profiency than the player-who-inhabits-the-character. That gap can create a frustrating dissonance between player and character. Social skills exist, to some degree, as a mechanical means to empower and reinforce unpersuasive players roleplaying persuasive characters to inhabit their character without relying strictly on GM fiat. But this again takes us back to an earlier question: what then does a successful Persuasion check achieve mechanically? And why can't this apply to PCs just as it does to NPCs? Likewise, for some people, players who exceed the DC of a Persuasion/Deception check will automatically successfully persuade/deceive the subject in question. Or there are people who will refuse the results of a Deception/Bluff check made by one PC against another because "my character wouldn't believe that" despite the success of the one player and the failure of the other in this contest of rolls. But without mechanical rules to govern this, these sort of things can devolve into a childhood brawl of "you didn't hit me with your laser, because I had my impentrable force field on that blocks lasers" scenarios that I mentioned earlier. It can turn players into sore losers who reject a reality that applies to them what they apply to others in the fictive space. No character wants to be deceived, and if a player knows that another player is lying, they will go out of their way to rationalize why their character could not possibly believe the Deception/Bluff. This is, in part, the benefit of having rules apply equally to NPCs and PCs, because the same mechanics that could resolve NPC on PC skill check issues are often the same that help resolve PC on PC issues. Though I am sure that some are tired of me discussing Fate, I find the system to be a useful counterexample to D&D, much as [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is want to use Burning Wheel or Cortex Plus as alternative examples of how they resolve similar issues. In this matter, I will say that Fate technically does not have "damage." Neither mental nor physical stress in Fate reflect "damage" or even being "hit." Stress instead is a pacing mechanic. Though here I will post an excerpt from collected Fate musings of [URL="https://www.evilhat.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/The-Book-of-Hanz-Fate-Core-Thought-of-the-Day.pdf"]The Book of Hanz[/URL]: Though this primarily is talking about physical stress, this can also apply to mental/social stress. The point being expressed here (and expounded more elucidly) that "hitting" and "damage" are less important in Fate than the character's ability to withstand narrative stress in a scene. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Game Mechanics And Player Agency
Top