First let's be clear. No one is advocating that a GM turn a successful check into a failure. What is being suggested is that just like there are multiple states of failure there are also multiple states of success.
A simple counter-example to establish this point. Suppose a player says, "I search the room for 1000 gold". He rolls a 1. Do you really consider a possible fail state in this example to be "you find a ruby worth 1000gp"? If you think that's a valid failure narration then you stand alone.
Yes. That you don't see a way is somewhat telling.
The ruby is cursed. The ruby belongs to a powerful entity who now declares enmity. The ruby.... so many ways to make finding exactly what the player wanted into something that the character suffers for.
So then with it established that there are multiple success states, why would a DM pick the one that a player didn't specifically request. A few possibilities:
1. His chosen success may move the story further along at some later point in time.
2. His chosen success may not interfere with already established fiction wheras the players precise request could.
3. It saves time. If the player asks to find 1000 gold and you say you don't and then he follows up with what do I find and you make him roll and tell him it was a 1000gp worth ruby anyways, then there was no fictional need for that additional exchange.
There's countless other reasons to still fulfill the players intent but slightly alter their specified outcome.
1. applies only to stories the GM has already written down.
2. nope, this is already a caveat that player outcomes cannot violate previously establish fiction or genre logic.
3. Huh?
So let's start in a simple test case. Can a single fantasy author write a story about a character that is legitimately challenged? Does he need dice to do so?
It's apparent the answer is he can do so without dice. In fact all it takes for him to create a character that is challenged in the fiction is for him to imagine that is the case and to write it down. How can that be?
You've moved the goalposts from "challenging the player's characterization of the fictional character" to "imagine a fictional challenge the fictional character overcomes in the fiction." The latter is true -- there's a fictional challenge that is overcome if the character fights and defeats an orc. The former is not true in the above because the author retains full control over the story and character throughout.
Of course we are different. Do you think anyone is asserting that fictional characters and real people are exactly the same in all the same exact ways? There's a reason we call them fictional characters and real people for crying out loud.
But pointing that out doesn't point out that there is a difference in the requirements of a fictional challenge in a fictional world and a real challenge in the real world (besides the obvious real vs fictional part). So then I come back around, there is no god ordained dice roller in the universe and we have challenges all the same. Why then do you believe that a fictional world requires a god ordained dice roller in order for the fictional character to face challenges in that fictional world?
You see, the basis for my claim is simple, anything that can be in the real world is also possible in a fictional world. Therefore, because the real world doesn't require dice rollers to produce challenges then a fictional world doesn't either. What's the basis for your claim otherwise?
Oh my. There's no difference in challenges between the real and the fictional except for those dealing with the difference between real and fictional. I'm glad that's out of the way -- imagine the confusion one might have!
And, you're banging on about dice being required when no one's made that argument. The argument has been for a mechanic, which can be a broad spectrum of things which, granted, dice occupy a large chunk of. The big thing here is that the decision is out of the player's hands for it to be a challenge. If the player retains all power and authority, then there's no challenge -- the player is just picking their favorite color at the moment.
Sure, but a fictional character can only be challenged by fictional things. Dice are not part of the fiction. They by nature can't cause a PC to be challenged. The dice may dictate to the author of said fiction to introduce a challenge to the character, but the dice themselves have no part in the fiction. Only in the authorship of said fiction.
This isn't true, though. The fiction does not exist without a real world person making real world choices. If we're talking about challenging the characterization that the real world person is using to roleplay the character, then this must take part, in some measure, in the real world as it involves the real person having to accept a change in character and then roleplay accordingly.
If that's your definition of roleplaying then I don't think it applies to D&D. Players in D&D simply state attempted actions - they don't suggest things that might be true. They simply state attempted actions. They don't negotiate with the other participants to determine their truth. They have predetermined that the DM will be sole arbitrator of what's true in the game.
Really? Let's look at searching for traps. Doesn't this mean the player is advancing that if there are traps here, I will find them? And then the negotiation takes places, usually with a call for a check, the result of which determines if the truth statement is correct or false -- you find the traps or you do not. This is even further advanced by the GM's notes -- there may not be any traps in which case the negotiation is the GM says you don't find traps.
The trick here is that you need to view the play in a new light instead of rejecting it outright. Doing so shouldn't change your opinions or preferences -- it's just a new vantage point on the same stuff. You don't lose if you see it.
But you don't actually need to constrain the real-world social negotiation between players and the table... (unless you refer to appointing a DM to preside over the game as a mechanic - which seems a bit specious IMO, but at least could possibly fit). In short - your stated function of mechanics is redundant.
Oh, absolutely you do. The very concept of a game is a constraint on the players of that game. How you constrain play is the very function of the rules of a game, and leads very much to the nature of play that game entails. Claiming no constraints are needed is going back to saying that everything should be cops-and-robbers, only even more chaotic.
Going back to your limited, D&D exclusionary, definition of roleplay sure. To a more broad and inclusive definition of roleplaying, doing that would constitute a moment when the DM is removing your ability to roleplay your character - which for a role playing game needs to be treaded lightly. Thus you may see mechanics involved in such situations to make the non-roleplaying aspects be more palatable.
Nope, you're incorrect. D&D isn't excluded in this framework. Recall I enjoy running D&D, so there's no animosity or attempt to subvert D&D in saying this. Constraints on play vary by system. Here, you're taking an example of how a constrain might look in some arbitrary system and rejecting the entire concept because the example doesn't fit your narrow experience. Relax.
Here it is in D&D. The GM establishes that there's an unseen threat (truth statement). The player declares an action to find the unseen threat (modifying truth statement). The negotiation goes to the D&D bog standard -- GM says (going to the system). Here, GM says a check is warranted (going to the system). The result will determine if the GM's original truth statement holds (threat is unseen) or the player's truth statement holds (character finds threat).
All other roleplaying systems yield inferior roleplaying to this (although they may make much better games overall)
You've previously admitted your ignorance on the play of other systems, yet you continue to display it by defining superior play as only how you play. It's a bit sad, really.
If you have multiple players then this system doesn't even work.
It does, actually, with the proper constraints.
Someone always has to determine when to roll dice.
Many systems do this in a very structured way. Say Yes or Roll the Dice, for instance, means the player always gets their action (and outcome) until challenged, at which time dice must be rolled. Or, in PbtA, if you do something that looks like a move, it's a move and dice are rolled. Moves are pretty clearly defined.
That's because you are using a flawed definition of roleplaying.
Irony!
We are in agreement with this statement.
Acting is not roleplaying.
Um, yes, yes it is. Definitionally. Roleplaying is broader than this, so acting is sufficient but not necessary to roleplaying (this means that it's definitely roleplaying, but not required for roleplaying).
You've spent so much energy trying to define things so that they describe you rather than trying to figure out what out there already does. You don't lose if there are other, equally valid ways to roleplay, or if other systems do things you don't like, or if other systems do some things better than the system you prefer. It's not zero sum. Yet, here you are, admittedly ignorant of other options and absent critical experiences, trying to make this a zero sum game defined in a way that you win. Maybe, try not trying to win but to understand that there are deeper thoughts about how games work that can, without changing your preference one iota, still help you make your game better?
