Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[howandwhy99]

The question again. A couple of issues I have with it:

1. How often *should* solutions be within the normal bounds of the rules?
As often as the players choose to do so really. I'm not trying to choose the right balance for any player along the in or out of the rules line. As a ref for a reality puzzle game I simply take any previously unaccounted for attempts and incorporate them from that point on.

2. How often should the *best* solution be so?
What the best solution is isn't really my purview either as the man behind the screen. The players set their own goals. One kind of best could be achieving a result as close as possible to their goal. Another kind might be exceeding their goal. What's the best result? I would say growth, but any which satisfies the players in other ways work too.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

The problem that I have with the Poetry Contest example is this: What happens the next time? Specifically in those cases where the Fighter's superior poetry skills (as explained by Fey Touched, Soul of a Dead Poet, etc...) create an auto-success.

If you've opened the door that "Doesn't really matter what your sheet says your character is, roleplying trumps that" then what if later on, there's a magical competition based on figuring out some arcane puzzle. Let's say the player of the Fighter, in addition to being poetic, also happens to be quite smart. He figures out the puzzle himself, and thus says that he should be able to win the competition, even though his stats pale in comparison to 20 INT Wizard at the table whose player isn't quite as bright.

As before, he's come up with something based on player skill that should easily win the competition, but that isn't backed up by the character sheet. More importantly, there is yet again another PC whose character sheet should be able to beat the challenge, but whose player could not. If asked, I'm sure that the Fighter would say "Well, my character actually worked as a Mercenary guarding a Wizard, and would read some of his tomes in his off time, where he saw the solution to such a puzzle", or some such thing.

The question then is, do you let him auto-succeed? If you do, then you've further reinforced that it really doesn't matter what character you decide to play, it only matters what BS background you can pull out of thin air to support your superior intellectual/persuasive/poetic/etc.. abilities. Since Frankie the Fighter is better than that than anyone else, then he will always win.

If you don't let it auto-succeed, then you've gone against your previous ruling. Frankie the Fighter will say "But it was fine in the poetry competition, why isn't it fine now? I beat the puzzle!", while everyone else is wondering "What's so much better about Wally The Wizard as compared to Beatrice the Bard? How come he got the special treatment of being the one to defeat the challenge with his PC's skills, when Beatrice the Bard was judged on her player knowledge?"

See the problem? When you have a defined and codified rules system that say something like "Roll Arcana" or "Make a Charisma check", it will always be fair in the sense that the expectations don't change. Yes, someone with a lower Arcana or Charisma can get lucky and roll a 20, and the guy with high stats can roll a 1. But overall, the character with the better stats will achieve more successes within the game. When you go "Out of Bounds" and start saying "Good roleplay can beat all that", then you create a situation where you either allow Frankie the Fighter to steal the spotlight constantly, or you have to go back on your ruling and basically take it back. I've seen it, and this is not really a fun way to play.

 

[Greg K]

Wouldn't the game be more fun if you let Keats/Angelou come up with impromptu poetry at the table, and that had an impact on the game?

If they want a character that is good at poetry and it comes up in a contest, in my campaigns, the character would need perform (poetry). If not, I don't care how masterful their poem is out of character. In character, it could still suck- the character could not write or recite it to the quality of the player.

YMMV.

 

[S'mon]

That kinda sucks.

At least Bad DM has the decency to override your colour, rather than to create this strange disconnect between player-contributed colour and railroaded plot.

But a week or so ago I remember reading a post where someone endorsed Bad DM's approach - that is, a poor skill roll means that the PC's words are spoken differently from what the player said. Which just goes to show that everyone's bad GM is someone else's good GM!

Yes, I was thinking of that post. Personally I think that negation - 'you didn't say that' is about the worst possible way to handle it, even worse than 'You say it, but they ignore you -no, you don't get a roll - adventure says no'.

 

[S'mon]

If you've opened the door that "Doesn't really matter what your sheet says your character is, roleplying trumps that" then what if later on, there's a magical competition based on figuring out some arcane puzzle. Let's say the player of the Fighter, in addition to being poetic, also happens to be quite smart. He figures out the puzzle himself, and thus says that he should be able to win the competition, even though his stats pale in comparison to 20 INT Wizard at the table whose player isn't quite as bright.

IMNSHO you should always and consistently let roleplaying trump what's on the PC sheet. A PC succeeding is not the end of the world!

I have the opposite problem - I play an INT 8 drunken dwarf so I can hit things with my hammer, and the DM expects me to solve some fiendishly complex logic puzzle... if I'm a player, I'm playing to get *away* from having to think hard! I hate being forced to do puzzles! If I were playing an INT 18 wizard, I would feel obligated to actually think hard about the bloody puzzle and try to solve it.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

IMNSHO you should always and consistently let roleplaying trump what's on the PC sheet. A PC succeeding is not the end of the world!

I have the opposite problem - I play an INT 8 drunken dwarf so I can hit things with my hammer, and the DM expects me to solve some fiendishly complex logic puzzle... if I'm a player, I'm playing to get *away* from having to think hard! I hate being forced to do puzzles! If I were playing an INT 18 wizard, I would feel obligated to actually think hard about the bloody puzzle and try to solve it.

I'm not trying to be flipant or anything here, but then what's the point of the character sheet in the first place if RP always trumps it? Why not just resolve combat that way too? I mean, if IRL I actually know a lot of martial arts, and could properly disarm and kill an opponent, why not let my 8 STR Wizard simple kill the BBEG on an OA then? Obviously, that's an extreme example, but it's the ultimate path this road leads down. Well, either that or LARPing.

Without codified rules, the game will quickly devolve into "Who's the most charismatic player?" In that case, you're no longer even roleplaying, becuase you're not playing a role, you're playing yourself. It's the exact opposite of what you set out to do. The 8 INT/10 CHA Fighter that writes tear inducing poetry, solves complex metaphysical problems and can probably sneak into a heavily guarded fortress in full plate and shield with a 10 DEX (hey, he roleplayed his stealth too!) is no longer a character in the game. It's the player at the table inserting himself, and his skills, into the world.

 

[Anselyn]

I want the rules to be game rules, not vague injunctions to make stuff up as seems appropriate.

Two questions?

What if the D&D game rules say bend the rules for narrative effect and for the maximum game fun?

Is chess an rpg?

 

[S'mon]

I'm not trying to be flipant or anything here, but then what's the point of the character sheet in the first place if RP always trumps it?

It's a fall-back: if I can't solve the puzzle myself, I can roll an INT check. If I can't give a great speech, I can roll a Diplomacy check.

Why not let the players double-dip? They can still fail the task, if they fail both ways - and in a D&D game there are plenty of chances to fail.

 

[S'mon]

I Why not just resolve combat that way too? I mean, if IRL I actually know a lot of martial arts, and could properly disarm and kill an opponent, why not let my 8 STR Wizard simple kill the BBEG on an OA then? .

I've run games where player description of realistic combat tactics & maneuvers (I had a player who was AIR a captain in the US Coast Guard) did have a big impact on success in combat. I enjoy that and like to encourage it. His PC could still lose, of course, but it gave him an edge and made the game a lot more fun for me.

 

[S'mon]

Without codified rules, the game will quickly devolve into "Who's the most charismatic player?" In that case, you're no longer even roleplaying, becuase you're not playing a role, you're playing yourself.

No, you're playing a role with the talents you possess. But certainly it is mostly self-insertion, the player is expected to be success-oriented so there is a strong player-PC identification and correspondence. The PC is an alter-ego, not a playing piece, and someone with whom the player strongly identifies. Those of us who GM a lot may create PCs with whom we identify less strongly, a bit of the GM habit creeps in, but IME that's rare. Most players' PCs are "Me - but cooler!" - and IMO that's fine.