The Answer is not (always) on your Character Sheet

[payn]

I would disagree.

Yes, a lot of DMs force only pure crunch rule mechanics with zero role playing for combat. Though most of these DMs will do this for all game actions. You can only get past the Gate Guard if your character makes a charisma check, type DMs. And even a lot of the DMs that are left will still want the crunch rule mechanics in combat for "feel" or "balance" or some other feeling.

But you can use "not on your character sheet" actions for things like battlefield control. Force a foe to fight on a ledge, on a slick surface, in water and so on. Or just knocking things down to make hard terrain. And you can even kill foes too. Get them on a high spot like a bridge walkway...and cut it loose. Get them in a room full of water. Drop them in a vat of acid or pool of lava. Drop a boulder on them.

For combat, way too many DMs and players are stuck in the box of combat must be like a video game: each side takes a turn to make an attack and do damage and the hit points go down. The side to loose all there hit points first looses.

Though there are ways to inflict damage that are not "I roll a 1d20 to hit" type attacks. For example, trapping a foe in an area that is on fire will cause them damage. Or if you trap the foe underwater: the AC of 30 with 200 hp don't matter if the foe is at the bottom of a river chained to a rock.....

You are veering into strategy vs tactics territory and ignoring the fact that many folks like mechanical combat. You really cant blame them either when significant amount of the rules space in books is dedicated to combat. So, while you may occasionally dispatch a foe through a clever ruse, you will eventually have to actually fight by the combat rules.

If you examine the editions of D&D, many of the items you list here were difficult to accomplish. 3E/PF1 had rules for just about anything. Sure, you could knock stuff over, push a guy, dirty trick a monster, etc.. but it was mechanically bad to do so unless you put items on your character sheet that made the PC good at it. 4E/PF2 is built around tactics so that your moves/abilities/etc.. are designed to work in a teamwork fashion. So, yes, taking character sheet actions is often the most efficient and successful way to engage a combat encounter. I do think 5E leans more into the improv area with (dis)advantage mechanic, but for many, it feels too simplified and overused.

So, we are back to the rulings over rules topic. When do you ditch the rules and use rulings? I dont think there is a universal answer becasue this thread alone proves that some folks like mechanical guidance. It helps steer the GM/player towards expected play that is fairly arbitrated. Though, others enjoy the creative freedom a rulings philosophy can offer, at least in theory. It all comes down to the trust which I think is difficult to establish, which is why rules are popular with many gamers.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This seems arbitrary and contradictory. You explicitly state that combat combines player skill and character skill through te choice of tactics. Why wouldn't social situations work exactly the same way?

I'm pretty sure it could, but it probably requires the system to invest as much in rules regarding social interaction, and that's both things people usually don't want to do, let alone getting people to agree how it should be structured.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A good bout of roleplaying can give a bonus to a social skill roll. However, I would never penalize a character’s good idea or rp or participation because they have a low social skill or stat on their character sheet.

And that's one of the places I leave you here; if someone is going to low-ball social or intellectual skills, I'm not going to let them end-run that just because their own skills in that area are higher.

 

[Wolfpack48]

And that's one of the places I leave you here; if someone is going to low-ball social or intellectual skills, I'm not going to let them end-run that just because their own skills in that area are higher.

I think it's because we don't have radical differences in social/intellectual player levels at our particular table. At a table where it was much more varied, I am sure we'd adjust our approach, especially in the example of an introverted player who wanted to play a charismatic character. At the end of the day, I want to find ways to reward players (equally) for doing things rather than penalize them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think it's because we don't have radical differences in social/intellectual player skills at our particular table. At a table where it was much more varied, I am sure we'd adjust our approach, especially in the example of an introverted player who wanted to play a charismatic character.

Well, like most things, the specific trumps the general. I'm pretty comfortable saying that's probably a generally bad idea, though, and it may be informed by the fact I've played a long time and with a lot of varied groups, and seen people do this on more than one occasion (I even saw one case where someone who was knowledgeable with some elements of melee combat do it with a GM who was the same and got sucked into tossing unearned benefits because of it).

 

[Wolfpack48]

(I even saw one case where someone who was knowledgeable with some elements of melee combat do it with a GM who was the same and got sucked into tossing unearned benefits because of it).

I'm not sure I follow. The player got talked out of a rule-based combat benefit because the GM overruled due to personal melee combat knowledge?

 

[kenada]

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

I associate it with “skilled play” as typically described by the OSR.

• What are your experiences with RPGs in design that supports or refutes this idea?
• What are your experiences with player preferences in regards to character sheets and rules/rulings?

My experience is as a GM running OSR games like OSE and WWN. I think my players like having interesting abilities in their sheets. Personally, I don’t like rulings or (lots of) rules. I prefer having a core conflict resolution mechanic that can be applies broadly.

That’s how I’ve designed my homebrew system. When the player wants to change the status quo, and the GM can foreground consequences, then you roll. When the conflict is more complicated than a single roll, it becomes a complex conflict (with a tracker signaling its ending and a cost to stay in it). The GM determines factors that affect the difficulty of the roll (such as distance, scale, etc). Depending on the factor, players can take steps to mitigate it (like moving closer to close the distance or doing something to remove a transient factor).

I try to post recaps in the five words commentary thread, so one can see how it works in action. Recent ones are obviously more reflective of the current state than older ones.

 

[Lanefan]

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

It means you're both allowed and encouraged to think outside the box; be it to push the envelope of what the rules and-or GM will let you do or to just use what's allowed in creative and unexpected ways.

Take something as simple as trying to get across a crowded room to an enemy by jumping on the table and swinging from the chandelier. Not every game has rules to cover this, and I'd posit no character sheet anywhere has an entry for "Chandelier-Swing Proficiency". Some GMs (or even systems) might say that because there's no rules for this, it's not allowed; but more often the GM has to rule on the fly as to whether or not this works, and-or the odds of such before dice get rolled.

"Not on your character sheet" is what differentiates tabletop RPGing from a computer game, in that a NOYCS moment is when you go beyond the game's "programming", which of course in a computer game is impossible.

 

[payn]

I associate it with “skilled play” as typically described by the OSR.


My experience is as a GM running OSR games like OSE and WWN. I think my players like having interesting abilities in their sheets. Personally, I don’t like rulings or (lots of) rules. I prefer having a core conflict resolution mechanic that can be applies broadly.

Thats interesting becasue I often think a core resolution mechanics might get a little too repetitive for me. However, I am a big fan of Traveller which is essentially 2D6+statmod+skill rank meet or beat 8 (maybe 10 or 12 in very difficult and/or disadvantaged situations.) With the large number of skills in Traveller, though, it always feels like there is plenty of opportunity is available to interest me as player and ref. I even liked the same resolution mechanics in PbtA games, though I tend to prefer those as short campaigns as I do eventually lose interest in them.

Move over to 5E D&D and (dis)advantage feels like a core resolution mechanic. Though something about it feels like a shortcut of all the mechanics in place in the system that makes it feel very uninspired. I could see that as a release valve for some folks and understand why its also very popular with them.

That’s how I’ve designed my homebrew system. When the player wants to change the status quo, and the GM can foreground consequences, then you roll. When the conflict is more complicated than a single roll, it becomes a complex conflict (with a tracker signaling its ending and a cost to stay in it). The GM determines factors that affect the difficulty of the roll (such as distance, scale, etc). Depending on the factor, players can take steps to mitigate it (like moving closer to close the distance or doing something to remove a transient factor).

I try to post recaps in the five words commentary thread, so one can see how it works in action. Recent ones are obviously more reflective of the current state than older ones.

I'll take a look.

 

[kenada]

Thats interesting becasue I often think a core resolution mechanics might get a little too repetitive for me. However, I am a big fan of Traveller which is essentially 2D6+statmod+skill rank meet or beat 8 (maybe 10 or 12 in very difficult and/or disadvantaged situations.) With the large number of skills in Traveller, though, it always feels like there is plenty of opportunity is available to interest me as player and ref. I even liked the same resolution mechanics in PbtA games, though I tend to prefer those as short campaigns as I do eventually lose interest in them.

The dice mechanic ended up similar to Traveller: 2d6 + method (skill) + approach (attribute) versus 8 + factors. There are twenty skills. Proficiencies (weapons and armor) and specialties also work with the same basic math. The important part though is how checks are initiated and resolved.

Move over to 5E D&D and (dis)advantage feels like a core resolution mechanic. Though something about it feels like a shortcut of all the mechanics in place in the system that makes it feel very uninspired. I could see that as a release valve for some folks and understand why its also very popular with them.

(Dis)advantage doesn’t really resolve anything though. One still has to make the check first.

I'll take a look.

There have been a few design missteps mechanically along the way, but hopefully the play does not come across as repetitive.