Players choose what their PCs do . . .

pemerton · Jul 20, 2019

Lanefan said:
pemerton said:

when the check succeeds the player decides, when the check fails the GM decides. It's so simple it's elegant! And it doesn't exclude any possibilities - the players are free to declare the full range of possible actions, the GM is free to narrate the full range of possible failures.

Click to expand...

Which means a player rolling a hot die can - and IME almost invariably would - have her PC bypass any and all obstacles the setting wants to throw in its way, and sail through the story/adventure/mission/whatever without any delays or frustrations or, dare I say, effort...with the one exception being any combats that are unavoidable.

The setting, and by extension the GM, exist in part to oppose and-or challenge the PCs and by extension the players; meaning that whether you like it or not there's always going to be that element of adversarialness (yeah, new word there) in their relationship. If the players are given free rein to narrate their successes then most if not all players IME would take that as license to run roughshod over the principles of the game.

I don't understand. Are you saying that sometimes the GM has to ignore successful checks and treat them as failures because otherwise the players will win the game unfairly or too easily? That's a strange assertion, if it's the one you're making.

I also don't understand what "combats that are unavoidable" has to do with anything. That's just more checks. If the player's dice are "hot" (as you put it) then the player can "bypass" the combat also.

Even within the framework of AD&D I don't really know what you're envisaging here. For instance, nothing in Gygax's AD&D books suggests that a GM can ignore a successful check to find secret doors or to disarm a trap because allowing the success would make things too easy for the players.

pemerton · Jul 20, 2019

Ovinomancer said:
5e does exploration well. It's designed on the premise that the PCs will be acting in a GM built world and exploring the fictional contours the GM has in mind. And, it does this well. It's structure of strong GM authority give the GM the needed control to curate the experience.

<snip>

5e does character control well. There's a lot to be said for being able to have absolute authority over once characterization -- to decide what it is you want to roleplay and not be challenged on that. This lets you focus on the external-to-character challenges the game presents which ties very nicely into my first point as much of the game will revolve around this kind of play.

Campbell said:
5e excels at GM led and mediated storytelling where the emphasis is on resolving the adventure that is put in front of the PCs with carefully managed spotlight balancing. The character generation rules do a good job of generating characters that have some interesting bits of characterization, but few outside entanglements. The resolution system is completely opaque to the players. The systems that encourage role play are about light characterization and not playing with integrity. In my experience from both sides of the screen it is not a good game for diving deep into character. It's not really designed for that.

<snip>

I would not layer in social mechanics with teeth to 5e. Every player's real motivation is assumed to be resolving the adventure. I do not think there really is extra room to give there. Players' hands are already pretty tied.

These two accounts of 5e seem pretty congruent with one another. They remind me of a certain, fairly common, sort of approach to 2nd ed AD&D.

I've also edited a post about half-a-dozen upthread having read these posts.

EDIT: and I also just read this, which seems equally congruent with the other two posts:

Manbearcat said:
5e makes no bones about its emulation of AD&D. I called it AD&D 3e in the play-test because it was utterly obvious that they were surveying, consulting, and designing with intent toward that paradigm. What does it do well:

* The heavy GM mediated experience of 2e where players are touring a setting or being run through a preconceived metaplot (either GM conceived or an AP). The opacity and GM facing resolution machinery and the GMing ethos (spotlight balancing, lead storytelling, et al) allows for GMs to deftly curate the experience, deploying Force and Illusionism where necessary to achieve the desired result of the experience of the setting, metaplot, and fun for casual players who are inclined toward a more passive role (which is a HUGE number of players), heavy on characterization and some GM-curated dice throws to actualize character concept in his/her story medium.

* It’s probably the best hexcrawl game on the market (or at least the ones I’ve run). The exploration mechanics/measurements/PC tools are integrated very well. So it does a good game with a predefined, tightly scaled map with various threats and goings-ons for players to navigate and engage strategic decision-making (where to go, how to go there, what resources to allocate). So 1e but vastly superior.

Arilyn · Jul 20, 2019

I am going to interject with some personal experiences. I have been involved in this hobby for decades and have played a variety of games. I love role playing, and lean more heavily on the narrative end of things. I tend to role play my characters honestly, and will do things which hurt my chances of success because that's what my character would do. I understand the posters on this thread who claim mechanics aren't needed for roleplaying. I get it. It's been my position for many years, and I have fun playing in this more classical mode.

BUT...

I decide in these cases what my character will put on the line, and so there is always that layer of safety, even if it seems my character has losses, and is struggling with angst. ( I have done my share of WOD). When I play in games with role playing mechanics that really puts on the pressure, it is different. It's actually more immersive, despite the initial reaction that role playing mechanics should destroy the player's autonomy. Everything has a more immediate feel, a greater intensity.

There's been skepticism that " story now" games must mean players just trip about getting what they want, and role play mechanics get in the way of me knowing best who my character is. This isn't true. You need to try these games to understand them because just imagining how they work doesn't cut it.

Having said all this, I continue to enjoy traditional play. I don't always want that pressure and intensity, and it can be more more challenging to get right.

Tony Vargas · Jul 20, 2019

pemerton said:
I've highlighted you use of the word things. I think you're using it to refer to certain sorts of events in the fiction. The sorts of things that might be presented on a messageboard in the form of a transcript.

I meant it as non-specific and all-inclusive.

In my post I was talking about experiences had by the players, at the table.

I would absolutely include things like those things, in 'things.'

The example was illustrative, not exhaustive.

Now, if you want to get down to the level of experiencing system artifacts, sure, even freestyle, with no system to speak of could be said to have those, and they'd be different from an actual system.

But, my point was not that all systems, are the same because they're the same as no system, just that nothing is outside the scope of a given instance of RP, just because it's outside the scope of what the system in use does, or does well, as the participants can hypothetically fall back on freestyle/make-believe/non-systematic RP.

I see the important takeaway being that such a hypothetical case is not an attribute, let alone strength, of the system, but simply coping with its failings.

Lanefan · Jul 20, 2019

pemerton said:
Upthread, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] asserted that 4e's hp mechanic is flawed because it doesn't conform to his expectations for a hp mechanic. That's a pretty strong claim - that his way of thinking is better. Presumably there's something that can be said to expain the weaker claim that it is good.

To save us from yet another hit-points-and-what-they-mean debate, I'll throw in just this: realism.

In real life each of us has a certain threshold of physical damage or trauma we can withstand before our body shuts down and we die. And, though we don't numeritically measure it by hit points, the general concept is the same.

If, for example, I go out this afternoon and get hit by someone riding a bicycle my "hit points" (i.e. my body's natural resistance to externally-inflicted trauma) are good enough to give me a reasonable chance of survival. If instead I get hit by a car going at standard street speed, my "hit points" will be put to a severe test and quite likely won't be enough to save me..though they might. However should I get hit and run over by a freight train my "hit points" don't have a chance of saving me: I'm done.

To the bicycle I'm a significant opponent. To the car I'm enough to do some damage but that's it. To the train I'm a bug to be swatted aside.

But what's the one thing that doesn't change? My actual physical resilience. My "hit points". The actual amount of trauma I can survivably sustain is the same in every instance.

4e minion rules don't reflect this at all.

The good of the GM's "special status" seems to consist in curating the players, via their PCs, through an adventure with a reasonably pre-determined structure/sequence of events, or fictional elements to be encountered. (I think this is what [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] means by "exploration", and what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] has in mind in expressing worries about challenges/obstacles being "bypassed".)

Now can someone tell me how that sort of play is going to put fundamental pressure on the player's conception of the character? I've not seen that in the real world, and I'm not seeing it in these descriptions either.

It isn't, if what's being bypassed are in fact those very challenges.

Lanefan · Jul 20, 2019

pemerton said:
I see this as somewhat similar to what I posted upthread - that in AD&D there's no systematic way to put your connection to family on the line.

If you're looking for a fully-game-mechanical means of generating or forcing such conflict then no, you won't find it.

But that in no way means the system doesn't or can't support it. In 1e that connection can be put on the line via story elements introduced by the GM (most often), by the PC's own player (less common), or by another player/PC (rare, but I've seen it happen).

Example. It'd take me all afternoon to fill in the whole backstory, but the here-and-now upshot still in process of being played out is this: up until now my PC has always put duty first: duty to mission, duty to Empire, duty to law, etc. at cost of friendships, potential romances, possessions, and even on at least one occasion her life. Recent events have put her family - who she hasn't had contact with in years and to whom she has never felt any real sense of duty (she rather looks down on them as the peasants they are) - in severe danger, and in the process of choosing between her duty to the party/mission and rescuing her family I've learned something about her: when put to it she'll see to her family first.

Game mechanics had nothing to do with any of this - in effect (and probably unintentionally!) the DM put a story-based challenge to the character.

And I'm sure you'll dismiss this as being a choice rather than a challenge...so in advance I ask, what's the difference?

Lanefan · Jul 20, 2019

Manbearcat said:
So TTRPG systems and play are not objective things and cannot be analyzed empirically

Empirically? Perhaps, but I'd posit true empiric analysis can only really ceom from someone outside the hobby. Those inside it have largely lost objectivity (whether we like to admit it or not) in favour of what we know/like/prefer.

Nothing wrong with this, of course, but we - all of us - have to admit it; and further have to admit that down-calling someone else's viewpoint as "subjective" or "just your preference" is almost always a case of pot meeting kettle.

and anyone that attempts to do so is a big jerk?

That's a bit harsh, but anyone inside the hobby who claims objectivity in analysis needs to be taken with a large grain of salt.

If you think TTRPG analysis isn’t useful, or actively harmful, why are engaging in a thread like this?

I don't see it as harmful at all - it's fascinating, sometimes, to see the various analyses put forward by those of different gaming preferences and how said analyses are thus filtered through said preferences.

And then, of course, I add my own...complete with filters!

Lanefan · Jul 20, 2019

pemerton said:
An action declaration is a proposal that the fiction should include a certain content. For instance, I [try and] climb the wall is a proposal as to the content of the shared fiction, namely, that it includes the PC climbing the wall.

Exactly! Hallelujah, we agree!

It's a proposal to change the fiction, and the dice will then determine the outcome - pretty binary, in this case - you either climb it or you don't.

The complications arise when other more general goals, or corollary specific goals that may or may not conflict, get thrown in to the same declaration e.g.

I (try to) climb the wall and kill the guard (two goals: climb the wall [specific] and kill the guard [general and unrelated, can be done with a bow from the ground] - should be split out)
I (try to) climb the wall and avoid the guard (two goals: climb the wall [specific] and avoid the guard [specific] - hard to split out but also hard to justify tying into one roll)
I (try to) climb the wall without being seen or heard from the street (two goals: climb the wall [specific] and maintain stealth [general] - these might be mutually incompatible in the fiction)
I (try to) climb the wall and open the third-floor window (two goals: climb the wall and open the window - both are specific but should be split out)

Conclusion: if multiple goals are presented, either split them out into specifics or accept that you're giving the GM more latitude to define what both a success or a failure represents.

Lanefan · Jul 20, 2019

pemerton said:
I don't understand. Are you saying that sometimes the GM has to ignore successful checks and treat them as failures because otherwise the players will win the game unfairly or too easily? That's a strange assertion, if it's the one you're making.

No, I'm saying just the opposite: that the GM has to abide by the rolls in principle; and then pointing out that doing so carries a risk of making things too easy and thus making the game less enjoyable.

I also don't understand what "combats that are unavoidable" has to do with anything. That's just more checks. If the player's dice are "hot" (as you put it) then the player can "bypass" the combat also.

See below...

Even within the framework of AD&D I don't really know what you're envisaging here. For instance, nothing in Gygax's AD&D books suggests that a GM can ignore a successful check to find secret doors or to disarm a trap because allowing the success would make things too easy for the players.

In 1e or similar systems the presence or absence of a secret door is determined by what's on the GM's map long before anyone searches for it...thus searching where there isn't one isn't going to find you one no matter what you do.

But in on-the-fly games where a player searching for a secret door can (on success) add one to the fiction, bypassing potential obstacles seems to become much easier. Example: party trying to sneak into a castle - scouting has shown a bunch of foes guarding the gates, so time to go to plan B. In 1e or similar, there might not be a viable plan B depending on how the adventure has been structured (the idea is that getting past the gate guards is intended to become either a big set-piece open field fight or a test of the party's diplomacy and-or stealth skills)...but in a system where the players can in effect author their own way in via repeated searches for secret doors (on a different bit of wall each time) then the gate guards can quickly become little more than window dressing.

Tony Vargas · Jul 20, 2019

Lanefan said:
To save us from yet another hit-points-and-what-they-mean debate, I'll throw in just this: realism.

Realism? In a discussion of hit points?

In real life each of us has a certain threshold of physical damage or trauma we can withstand before our body shuts down and we die.

Nope, we don't. A very slight trauma involving relatively little injury can kill instantly, profound trauma over much of the body can be survived. The human body is freak'n weird. People fall in the shower and die. People fall out of airplanes without parachutes and live. It's not because some people rolled 1 on their HD. It's not because falls do d1000 damage. It's because reality is far, far more complex than something like hps can even begin to model.

More over, "Realism" was the bludgeon with which critics attacked D&D in it's earliest days - /for having hit points that increased with level/. Because, if hps were, as you just blithely claimed, just a measure of ability to absorb trauma, then 'experience' increasing them would be wildly unrealistic. Your character would have to physically grow, or become denser, or change his material composition or something.

That criticism was answered, and hps were never conceived as simply a measure of capacity to absorb physical trauma.

But, come the edition war, that fallacious strawman criticism of early D&D was held up as /the way D&D had always been/.

It's about the most 1984-worthy bit of double-think in the revisionist history of the game.