The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[Wolfpack48]

I think the complaint, if I understand it correctly, is that the skill system is essentially binary pass/fail. Intimidate a guy? One roll. Deceive someone? One roll. Where as in combat you have initiative, move actions, attack actions, spells, etc.. It's nuanced and interesting and everyone gets to react as the situation develops. There is no outline for social pillar at all besides you say; GM decides.

Edit; ninja'd

Ah, I see, so play it out in a lengthier way like a multi-round combat? Sure, I could see doing that if it was important enough. I still think it's the roll deciding, not the GM -- they might give a modifier for an idea or approach, though. If you really went down this road, I could see the equivalent of HPs -- SPs (Social Points?) -- becoming a thing, and social interactions becoming "battles"

 

[Reynard]

Ah, I see, so play it out in a lengthier way like a multi-round combat? Sure, I could see doing that if it was important enough. I still think it's the roll deciding, not the GM -- they might give a modifier for an idea or approach, though. If you really went down this road, I could see the equivalent of HPs -- SPs (Social Points?) -- becoming a thing, and social interactions becoming "battles"

I have long advocated for a system like this. not as the typical way to do every interaction, but for the important ones. LOTS of folks disagree, tho.

i also think D&D should have a built in "quick combat" rule like SWADE does. Sometimes it just isn't worth the exercise of fighting those 4 bandits.

 

[Wolfpack48]

For some folks that might be considered neutral. Its not the GM's job to arbitrate your ideas into bonuses or penalties; thats what the rules do.

Now, I do want to encourage my players to come up with ideas and apply them in game. Though, im also careful because I know how subjective and fickle that can be. Some posters in this thread have demonstrated some interesting ideas. I have also seen them post about kicking their player in the nuts hard mechanically for not living up to their idea of a "good" idea. So, I get why folks are dubious of the approach.

Ideally, you want a mechanical system that provides a guideline for this activity. Something along the lines of making the check a little easier/harder based on GM interpretation. Otherwise, you get random handwaves in one way or the other of the rules system in which players stop playing the game and just play for the GMs approval.

(bolded) That might be the Viva La Dirt League video!

Would folks feel more comfortable if the entire table needed to agree on what was a "good idea" to get a modifer? I always preferred the term "referee" to GM/DM because it infers neutrality. If you've got a table where the referee and players have trust and don't feel at odds with another, I think the referee making the call is less of an issue.

At any rate, I still think it's the roll that decides the final outcome, but there is room for interpretation on modifiers to that roll.

 

[payn]

At any rate, I still think it's the roll that decides the final outcome, but there is room for interpretation on modifiers to that roll.

This bit is whats the rub. Does the GM get to push the check a little, or (near) completely decide what happens?

 

[Reynard]

(bolded) That might be the Viva La Dirt League video!

Would folks feel more comfortable if the entire table needed to agree on what was a "good idea" to get a modifer? I always preferred the term "referee" to GM/DM because it infers neutrality. If you've got a table where the referee and players have trust and don't feel at odds with another, I think the referee making the call is less of an issue.

At any rate, I still think it's the roll that decides the final outcome, but there is room for interpretation on modifiers to that roll.

I came in in 1985 with BECMI. "Referee" never made sense because there has never been, IME, two sides. Referee only make sense from the wargaming perspective, which I missed entirely.

 

[Wolfpack48]

I have long advocated for a system like this. not as the typical way to do every interaction, but for the important ones. LOTS of folks disagree, tho.

i also think D&D should have a built in "quick combat" rule like SWADE does. Sometimes it just isn't worth the exercise of fighting those 4 bandits.

This is one thing I liked about HeroQuest, though there were other problems with that system. They had the concept of Simple and Extended contests. You could literally resolve a battle with some unimportant bandits with one roll, which would quickly resolve things, then determine how scathed/unscathed the party was afterward.

 

[Wolfpack48]

This bit is whats the rub. Does the GM get to push the check a little, or (near) completely decide what happens?

I would say most of the time they (or the entire table) could push the modifier based on play, but they don't get to determine the final outcome.

That said, should there be times when the adventure needs to move forward, and there is a decision to just proceed? The VLDL video is actually pretty illustrative of the issue, even if it was hanging on a puzzle. What if it hung on a roll, and the party couldn't get through the door according to the roll? Should there be room for a ruling to simply move ahead?

 

[Wolfpack48]

Let the bonuses and penalties on ability scores come out in the actual rolls. Player 1 may really, really want to connive his way past the guard with some sort of BS story, but if they have a -1 to their CHA, well...roll. See if the -1 comes into play. If the player seems really invested in their idea, and it's a solid plan, give them advantage, but it's still at a -1.

For Player 2, it really depends on how they interact with the game. If they're having fun, I'm not going to try to fix a problem that may not be there. Or, they may have an idea, but I'm not going to press them to roleplay it out - that's what the die roll is for. They can describe their idea as much or as little as they want.

I generally agree with this -- an idea can result in a modifer to the check (also include other modifiers from the character sheet) but can't decide the final outcome -- that is a roll. For the player who doesn't roleplay, I'd say presenting an idea or approach without the improv could still result in a modifier and would still include the bonuses for high stats/skills on their character sheet.

 

[payn]

I would say most of the time they (or the entire table) could push the modifier based on play, but they don't get to determine the final outcome.

Yeah I dont like the committee idea, I think a mechanical system that is understood by GM and player is sufficient. The situation im looking to avoid is the GM liking an idea and making the DC 5, or disliking an idea and making the DC 25 ((dis)advantage often feels like this). Essentially, making the result all but certain based on their perspective alone. Something that pads the modifier would be ideal.

That said, should there be times when the adventure needs to move forward, and there is a decision to just proceed? The VLDL video is actually pretty illustrative of the issue, even if it was hanging on a puzzle. What if it hung on a roll, and the party couldn't get through the door according to the roll? Should there be room for a ruling to simply move ahead?

I think single point stops are just bad adventure design. This isnt an issue in combat, rarely an issue in exploration, and pretty much the rule in social. Instead, a problem should have many approaches and solutions.

 

[Wolfpack48]

Yeah I dont like the committee idea, I think a mechanical system that is understood by GM and player is sufficient. The situation im looking to avoid is the GM liking an idea and making the DC 5, or disliking an idea and making the DC 25 ((dis)advantage often feels like this). Essentially, making the result all but certain based on their perspective alone. Something that pads the modifier would be ideal.

I'm actually thinking differently. The DC would be set ahead of time (if not specifically listed as part of the adventure, then Medium 15 - after all, the monsters all have their ACs predefined). A "good idea" would modify the roll, not the DC.

I think single point stops are just bad adventure design. This isnt an issue in combat, rarely an issue in exploration, and pretty much the rule in social. Instead, a problem should have many approaches and solutions.

Yep, but let's widen it a bit. Suppose there were multiple approaches, but the group/referee really wanted to allow the current path to proceed. Should there be room for that?