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 coming! 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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
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="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7291531" data-attributes="member: 6919838"><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>First bold as it relates to the second - i wasn't meaning to reference GSN theory at all but as you bring it up its odd to me that as highlighted in the first bold, the degrees of how much narrative vs mechanics plays a role in even the thoughts of your characters and their descriptions matters but you essentially dismiss the very subject of how narrative vs game is valued in a game GSN as to your games? </strong></p><p></p><p>But the biggest disconnect i think we have, beyond "my player's thoughts" stuff is the apparent false dichotomy you put up, not completely explicitly - but partially implied at least. My players can think about "how the character is doing it" as well as "the mechanics" and put them all together.</p><p></p><p>As a matter of fact - i encourage them to do both.</p><p></p><p>I absolutely do not want them to divorce decisions of "how my character does this" and "what my character's mechanics are" one bit. if i could get them to fuse those two together at every single description, i would be extremely happy.</p><p></p><p>Why... To misquote a certain college basketball announcer ***Its about THE **R**, baaayyybe!***</p><p></p><p>Roleplaying.</p><p></p><p>I don't want a player describing a scene in which his character walks up coyly, slides arm around flirting, etc (basically makes all the right choices as one would do) if their character's **skill level** is not supportive of that description.</p><p></p><p>I don't want a player narrating his character's emphatic, well reasoned and compeelling speech... if that character's related skills are like net -1 to the D20.</p><p></p><p>The scene you describe to the others as a player, the details and sophistication etc, IMO should be driven by your <strong>character's actual aptitude</strong>, **at least* as much as the <strong>player's actual aptitude</strong>, if not more. </p><p></p><p>So, if i got a player who manages to divorce his choices for the "narrative" from the mechanics in the way you suggest, i would likely as not have to from time to time discuss this issue with them out of character, if they did not catch on to the ideas more firmly illustrated by the events in game with not just them but also the other players.</p><p></p><p>As for the third bold about players making wrong choices about skills needed and so on... and my point that Gms can make mistakes too...</p><p></p><p>If you decide it is a dex-dec it is just so and... OK, sorry for assuming you could make a mistake in that assessment, but some Gms have commented that they actually **ALLOW** players to (after they tell them the check to make) suggest other checks or proficiencies that apply etc... and that whole "i said this check but now it can be that check" kind of thing seems an awful lot the same as when the player rolls an ABC check it wasn't the one needed either. But, not in your games, got it. </p><p></p><p>Either way we both agree, some Gms can make mistakes with this, as can players. The "roll was made" vs "roll not yet made" does not change that.</p><p></p><p>Last bold... actually it was. I mean, the issue being put forth there was the issue of players and Gm not being on the same page when it come to in-play skill uses and application - the fact that you do not have the same interpretation of that skill in that scene as they did is not a big deal.</p><p></p><p>The big deal is the difference between a GM who wants his players and he to be on the same page as far as skill checks and skills and what they do when it comes to at the table play (and all the way back to chargen) or whether that not something the GM cares about (much) except at chargen.</p><p></p><p>That example was just a for instance... insight vs deception just one case... </p><p></p><p>And BTW i am a big fan of flopping around ability-skill pairs when its appropriate and needed - but i feel those cases should be as clear and as expected and as much "on the same page" for the players at playtime and at chargen as any of the regular ones are. They should have as clear a sense of confidence that "INT will apply here not DEX" from experience and explanations gained in your game as they do from reading "use Dex checks for stealth" in the PHB. (Exception of course for incomplete knowledge.)</p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong>Anyway, to me, i dont care about the GNS etc... what i care about is that the expectations gained by choices match up with the results gained from choices... and to me its best when everybody is "on the same page" and the mechanics and choices and narrative are all **deliberately** operating hand-in-hand-in-glove and no one element of that gets shoved into (or fades into) the background in the actual at-the-table experience.</strong></p><p></p><p></p><p>i can pull a lot of other games off the shelf or rather up from PDF that are great for "fade away" mechanics that don't play a role in the player's in-play thought process, decisions and choices of descriptions. they would not involve anywhere near as much number crunching during chargen, <em>but maybe a dash more writing.</em> I already get a lot of narrative writing for new chars even with the crunchy.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7291531, member: 6919838"] [B] First bold as it relates to the second - i wasn't meaning to reference GSN theory at all but as you bring it up its odd to me that as highlighted in the first bold, the degrees of how much narrative vs mechanics plays a role in even the thoughts of your characters and their descriptions matters but you essentially dismiss the very subject of how narrative vs game is valued in a game GSN as to your games? [/B] But the biggest disconnect i think we have, beyond "my player's thoughts" stuff is the apparent false dichotomy you put up, not completely explicitly - but partially implied at least. My players can think about "how the character is doing it" as well as "the mechanics" and put them all together. As a matter of fact - i encourage them to do both. I absolutely do not want them to divorce decisions of "how my character does this" and "what my character's mechanics are" one bit. if i could get them to fuse those two together at every single description, i would be extremely happy. Why... To misquote a certain college basketball announcer ***Its about THE **R**, baaayyybe!*** Roleplaying. I don't want a player describing a scene in which his character walks up coyly, slides arm around flirting, etc (basically makes all the right choices as one would do) if their character's **skill level** is not supportive of that description. I don't want a player narrating his character's emphatic, well reasoned and compeelling speech... if that character's related skills are like net -1 to the D20. The scene you describe to the others as a player, the details and sophistication etc, IMO should be driven by your [B]character's actual aptitude[/B], **at least* as much as the [B]player's actual aptitude[/B], if not more. So, if i got a player who manages to divorce his choices for the "narrative" from the mechanics in the way you suggest, i would likely as not have to from time to time discuss this issue with them out of character, if they did not catch on to the ideas more firmly illustrated by the events in game with not just them but also the other players. As for the third bold about players making wrong choices about skills needed and so on... and my point that Gms can make mistakes too... If you decide it is a dex-dec it is just so and... OK, sorry for assuming you could make a mistake in that assessment, but some Gms have commented that they actually **ALLOW** players to (after they tell them the check to make) suggest other checks or proficiencies that apply etc... and that whole "i said this check but now it can be that check" kind of thing seems an awful lot the same as when the player rolls an ABC check it wasn't the one needed either. But, not in your games, got it. Either way we both agree, some Gms can make mistakes with this, as can players. The "roll was made" vs "roll not yet made" does not change that. Last bold... actually it was. I mean, the issue being put forth there was the issue of players and Gm not being on the same page when it come to in-play skill uses and application - the fact that you do not have the same interpretation of that skill in that scene as they did is not a big deal. The big deal is the difference between a GM who wants his players and he to be on the same page as far as skill checks and skills and what they do when it comes to at the table play (and all the way back to chargen) or whether that not something the GM cares about (much) except at chargen. That example was just a for instance... insight vs deception just one case... And BTW i am a big fan of flopping around ability-skill pairs when its appropriate and needed - but i feel those cases should be as clear and as expected and as much "on the same page" for the players at playtime and at chargen as any of the regular ones are. They should have as clear a sense of confidence that "INT will apply here not DEX" from experience and explanations gained in your game as they do from reading "use Dex checks for stealth" in the PHB. (Exception of course for incomplete knowledge.) [B] Anyway, to me, i dont care about the GNS etc... what i care about is that the expectations gained by choices match up with the results gained from choices... and to me its best when everybody is "on the same page" and the mechanics and choices and narrative are all **deliberately** operating hand-in-hand-in-glove and no one element of that gets shoved into (or fades into) the background in the actual at-the-table experience.[/B] i can pull a lot of other games off the shelf or rather up from PDF that are great for "fade away" mechanics that don't play a role in the player's in-play thought process, decisions and choices of descriptions. they would not involve anywhere near as much number crunching during chargen, [I]but maybe a dash more writing.[/I] I already get a lot of narrative writing for new chars even with the crunchy. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Players Self-Assigning Rolls
Top