As per my response to @
Campbell above - is this happening before play or during play? Before play and I can handle it, although too much of it might make ask why I'm not changing systems. During play and it's going to suck - because now every action declaration is subject to some form of arbitration based on the GM's conception of whether or not it is bad for the game.
I’m referring to setting the rules, so to me that happens out of game. More often, it happens without anyone noticing it as, much like @
Manbearcat , I have a group that’s generally on common ground, so they don’t think you can whisper your spells or select the most generous possible spell interpretation. On occasion, interpretation issues must be resolved in play because they arise in play. Sometimes, we have to reassess an ability because it does prove excessive in play. But generally, there’s a common ground.
The concept (or, at least, the term) was introduced by me (post 1352), as part of an explanation of why I wouldn't want to frame scenes that are simply for the dispensing of backstory. And speaking in funny voices is exactly the sort of thing I meant by it - various forms of mere colour manifested in the play of a PC - so @
TwoSix got my meaning perfectly.
So do I – it’s not your playstyle, so it should be disparaged as “speaking in funny voices”.
I don't see how you can be a charming con man if you have Duping but not Seduction or something similar.
Because you can con people without seducing them? Clearly, such a character needs to have some social skills, or he will not manifest in play as a charming con man. But he could be a sneak thief good at talking his way out of trouble rather than a charming con man.
That reminds me of another issue on that @
Manbearcat scene. @permerton, you previously commented on how the rules not matching the expectations is jarring – you mentioned wanting a strong character to PLAY as a strong character – to accomplish feats of strength in play. The 4e mechanics as played out in the scene above didn’t present a stubborn, strong-willed Chamberlain to me. Did you see a strong-willed, stubborn Chamberlain who truly challenged the social skills of the PC’s?
What stands out for me in both these replies is the assumption that "the character may not understand why the effect ended", that "the PC's beliefs are role-played in his belief that "luck" on his part is "divine guidance" by the Raven Queen".
Some might describe the “why” of the mechanics as “mere colour”. The effect lasted a specific period of time, then ended. Does it matter whether he was a frog, a toad or a rat? He’s equally helpless – colour. Does it matter why the spell ended? Not really – colour. Role play is largely colour – going beyond tactics and mechanics to add personality.
'm also struck by the assertion that the player's playing of his PC in this way "has no effect on gameplay/game resolution". It has a fundamental effect! It's not mere colour; it further establishes the basic fictional positioning of the paladin, which in turn frames what is feasible in terms of action resolution, and what sorts of conflicts I might frame to engage the player of that PC.
How? If we ignore his religious convictions, would the spell end later? If he were more devout, would it never have taken hold? His role playing did not impact the mechanics. They did something much more important – they added the kind of colour that makes the game more fun.
And is it really faith if it remains only when it tangibly manifests? It must have been the Will of the Raven Queen that he spend several rounds as a frog - what message did that send?
Of coures, you could say that one of the things the dice rolls are modelling are divine providence - but then the rogue is as likely to benefit from providence as the paladin! (This is another version of the Conanesque cynicism I mentioned upthread.)
Mechanically, how is the rogue any less likely to benefit in your game? He colours it as luck, or personal skill, or what have you, but the mechanics are unchanged.
Ah, but once your players catch on that nothing you run is ever filler you'll never be able to have a supposedly-nothing encounter become relevant a long time later due to something overlooked (or thought of as irrelevant filler) at the time, because they'll know everything is important.
Very true. We already have this to an extent in that the GM rarely presents a mundane matter that is truly a mundane matter. When we begin in the inn, enjoying a beverage, we know something will happen beyond whether we order another round,
Er...I don't get this. You say you want every encounter to matter then proceed to give an example of one that really doesn't. I mean yes, 4e seems great for the set-piece battle and dramatic scene, but without more info or context that Beholder battle sounds like nothing more than a jumped-up wandering monster encounter - in other words, the very filler you claim to so dislike.
Agreed – the scenes are all thematically meaningful until the GM decides to run one that is not. We avoid pure colour scenes until we want a pure colour scene. @
pemerton noted he doesn’t want these as a steady diet, but I suggest this merely illustrates the desire for variety in the game, something I don’t think anyone has disagreed with (outside insistence that every scene be of similar import, with common chances and means of success, I suppose).
But what you are calling "ad libbing into the story" is what I call roleplaying. The player says what his/her PC does. That is then resolved, and the fiction changes appropriately - in ways which themselves frame future possibilities of action. When the player of a wizard says "I cast Wall of Iron across the passage, trapping the giants on the other side" do you count that as "ad libbing into the story"? I'm not sure that I see any major difference.
I call that strategy and tactics, neither role playing nor ad libbing the story. The latter would be creating the passage the Giants must pass through, or imposing that the Giants are really friendly, and only want to give you a “I Visited The Hill Giant Steading” T Shirt (or that the noble, righteous King actually hands babies over to Dragons on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Saturdays).
Actual role playing? That would be why the wizard is here to defend the townsfolk, despite being terrified of physical damage. That would be why, for example, he panics and uses that Wall of Iron to block off a force that wasn’t really much of a threat to the party.
Where to me that "colour" is half the fun! I see my role as player as being in large part to entertain the DM and the other players; I expect to be entertained in return. Mechanics are (usually) not entertaining. Personalities and "colour" (usually) are.
Again to @
Manbearcat ’s scene – reading how the scene played out was entertaining. Reading the modifiers, DC’s and rolls was boring. The latter is mechanics. The former was all colour.
I'm beginning to think I wouldn't last very long at your table.
I try to - and will quickly admit don't always succeed at - play within my character's knowledge, though often making the assumption that others in the party will have shared their knowledge of relevant things as well.
I also try to think what the character would do in-game as opposed to what the player would rather do in the metagame, and have in the past role-played myself right out of various parties because of this.
An example: As a more experienced player, I got tired of everyone asking me what we should do instead of making their own decisions. Enter Colquehoun, the Scot Berserker. He was as seasoned a combatant as any in party, but he was raised on old wives’ tales. “Let’s catch the Pixie, pull his wings off and make him lead us to his pot of gold!” On his first encounter, we found Umber Hulks. DM: “How do you approach and attack the Umber Hulk.” ME: “Looking him square in the eye so he knows I’ve no fear of him – as any TRUE warrior would.” Metagame stupid, but clearly how this character would think. I was surprised he still let me roll a save (and rolling a ‘1’ felt right…).
In short: if you're going to play a role then play the role, wherever it takes you.
Amen, Brother!
I try to - and will quickly admit don't always succeed at - play within my character's knowledge, though often making the assumption that others in the party will have shared their knowledge of relevant things as well.
