The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[Voadam]

What does “answer not on your character sheet” mean to you?

It means think about the situation and how to approach it as an imagined narrative scene.

• What are your experiences with RPGs in design that supports or refutes this idea?

B/X D&D and early 1e D&D with almost no character skill mechanics outside of combat. Most everything was roleplayed and player skill action.

Honey Heist where there were only two stats.

Kids on Bikes where it was fairly rules lite.

I generally like the rules lite focus on roleplay and non mechanical narrative interaction.

• What are your experiences with player preferences in regards to character sheets and rules/rulings?

Some really want to game the mechanics system and work to leverage rules hard. Some are not really clear on a lot of the details of their sheet and the rules.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I like how all this stuff kinda just comes out in the wash in something like PbtA games. You say your thing, maybe some dice happen, and someone describes where things are at afterwards. There's not really a notion of different mechanics unless a specific move wants them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

To be clear, it is not really an improvement to simply add more rolls. You need more design to get there: discrete social actions that lead to different results, variable impacts, different targetable defenses, all that.

That's why I said "part of it".

I'm largely unpersuaded that social interactions get better with more involved systems. PCs really just need a defined scope of available action (what can I get this person to do/believe) and then a roll to see if they get what they want.

Eh, I still stand by the idea that one-and-done rolls are a bad choice for anything of any importance. This isn't limited to social interactions, but as I've said, the willingness to take the time to bring the degree of engagement applied to most combat systems to other elements just doesn't seem to be there.

 

[Reynard]

Part of it, as you referenced earlier, is that its a multi-stage process. One roll isn't winner take all, so you have a chance to access the tactics you're using and try something new, invest limited resources and do other things.

Most social rolls in most games are one roll; even if you had some choices in how you approached them, you never get a chance to adjust.

Right, and for consequential special encounters this isn't enough.

Just like for inconsequential combats, utilizing the full combat system is too much.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Right, and for consequential special encounters this isn't enough.

Just like for inconsequential combats, utilizing the full combat system is too much.

I've got a bit of a tic about the latter usually, but then, I kind of grew up on RuneQuest where even a theoretically inconsequential combat had the potential to leave a PC dead, so its probably just me living in the past.

 

[Reynard]

I've got a bit of a tic about the latter usually, but then, I kind of grew up on RuneQuest where even a theoretically inconsequential combat had the potential to leave a PC dead, so its probably just me living in the past.

I agree. In soem games (Basic D&D and to a lesser extent AD&D among them 0 there is no such thing as an inconsequential combat. But in 5E there certainly are (usually defined as any combat easier than "Hard" and most combats easier than "Deadly"). Yet that fact that a fight occurs might be the right outcome of the PCs choices and actions. So a SWADE style "quick combat" system would be of some use.

 

[Wolfpack48]

But Isn’t what’s really being asked whether everything that can occur in a session be handled by a character sheet spec or rule? Are there things that can occur that must be decided outside a roll?

If so, is there room for rulings? And if there is, who should make them?

 

[aramis erak]

That could as easily be read "charismatic players don't need to invest in social skills" or "particularly introverted players will be taxed several skill points."

In my experience, almost always leads that way.

I'd argue that A/D is an attempt to do two things: eliminate excessive bonus/penalty hunting, and do it in a way that is very quick.

It was explicitly for that

I suspect its approach is only really attractive to people who place quite a high value on speed.

No; it appeals to me, and resolution speed definitely isn't on my priority list. Ease of resolution, however, is, and in D&D 5, that was the single most attracktive element to me, with bounded accuracy being second. But the rest of it has grown so annoying I don't see fit to use it much; and the additional impetus of WotC asinine behaviors last year... D&D is off my radar. When my current campaign ends, I'm done with D&D. (And neither Pathfinder ed holds any appeal, either, tho' Pugmire and SG1 both use modified variants of 5E mechanics. Both have other appeal elements beyond BA and A/D rolling.)

 

[aramis erak]

No.

Instead, the GM should prepare to deal with the fallout of their not being able to move ahead; and be ready for them to either keep bashing their heads against the wall, or abandon the mission in favour of something else, or fall to fighting among themselves, or whatever. Just because you prepped something doesn't necessarily mean you're going to get to run it.

Sometimes, the fiction demands failure.
Sometimes, it allows for complicated success.
Sometimes, it allows for non-blocking failures.
Sometimes, it's just important to give the clue.
Sometimes failure means, "Pick a different method to get the clue"...

All of which are part of an investigation based campaign's needs. And not untoward in most campaigns.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No; it appeals to me, and resolution speed definitely isn't on my priority list. Ease of resolution, however, is,

That may be a distinction to you, but conversations here and elsewhere don't suggest it is for most people.