GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[TwoSix]

This was why the shift the 3E was a little jarring for me with social skills. I was always much more a fan of the Etiquette NWP which functioned as a knowledge and didn’t replace or get in the way of RP. I think this is just one of those divides in the hobby. Neither is right or wrong but for me, I much prefer allowing the players to speak as their characters and having what is said shape things like NPC reactions (obviously factors like reputation, power, CHR, can factor in). I simply have more fun playing the game this way

I think there's an interesting thing here. I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)

And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game. Indeed, I think there would be large outcry against such a system.

 

[embee]

GM.

GM said it's a GOT-type setting with no non-human playable races. If the party is on board with this and buys in, then they've bought in. It's take-it-or-leave-it on that and it's well within the GM prerogative to limit playable races.

The books are a grocery store. I tell my kids that we're having chicken for dinner, with a veg and a starch. If one kid says she wants to have a hot dog with broccoli and a bowl of Cinnamon Toast Crunch, I say no. Sure, I could buy the hot dogs and cereal at the store. But that's not the choice I gave and, at the end of the day, I am the arbiter of choice.

It sounds harsh but consider that the GM has (hopefully) already put in some work to prep the campaign. One player having enough veto-power to require a total reworking of the campaign is both inconsiderate of the GM's job responsibilities and a reversal of the role dynamics.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there's an interesting thing here. I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)

And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game. Indeed, I think there would be large outcry against such a system.

I think this is a simplification. What I know is in earlier editions I had a much easier time focusing on RP, and handling it free-form. Were there knowledges and other rules in earlier editions? Yes, but most of those rules were optional and they didn't interfere with RP (at least the rules provided in the core books: expansion material was all over the place). It really depends on what edition and rules, so maybe there are mechanics you have in mind. But even things like CHR reaction were easy to handle without getting in the way of RP. And yes you had rules for things like sensing secret doors, but those were largely passive, and it just wasn't as complete as a system for non-combat stuff as you find in 3E. Also so many of those rules were not obvious. Try reading through the 2E PHB and see how differently it handles these things. It isn't that the game has no material for non-physical abilities of characters. But try looking up rules for things like a generic detect. I am not saying those kinds of things can't be found. Often they can, but they are often buried, optional, or firmly placed in the hands of the GM. And in the case of NWPs like Etiquette they specifically state they do not replace RP.

It has been a while now, but I ran 2E again several times because I had noticed my Ravenloft games felt different. The moment I shifted from 3E to 2E, it went back to how it was (and I had just been chalking it up to nostaglia prior to that). I think there were two major reasons for this: the rules led to more freeform RP and interaction with the setting; and combat was faster.

I think it is very easy in these discussions to misidentity the problem, or identify some aspect of play that is a problem for people in certain quantities, but not a problem in corners of the game. Discussions then become a matter of one side finding those corner cases or less prominent cases to essentially say "see you really don't have a problem with this". But it is often more about how prevalent such mechanics are. Not saying that is what you are doing but been in a lot of these conversations where that happens. Personally, the very first thing that struck me about RPGs was the freeform RP. I played a lot of 3E but noticed issues around that with the system. And ultimately gave up on D&D once 4E came out and we tried several campaigns of it. Now I mostly play other games or play earlier editions of D&D (or retroclones). And that seems to fit my taste pretty well,

 

[tetrasodium]

I think there's an interesting thing here. I think a large section of the playerbase likes the idea of physical capabilities of characters being a function of the ruleset and character-building, but want the mental and social aspects of the game to be handled by player skill and DM-player negotiation (The "I just want to roleplay it" request.)

And yet, there's no system I can think off that builds the character as a purely physical construct and assumes the player will handle the mental/social aspects of the game. Indeed, I think there would be large outcry against such a system.

you might be stretching to use he word "large" but I'll give you "vocal". There are very important reasons not to do that however. I'm quite sure that a wide array of monsters and npcs should be dramatically more skilled at social interaction than the average player, above average player, elite player, & even the most elite player when it comes to social interaction. Add to that the fact that a player who happens to have taken a self defense course, does athletics/acrobatics related stuff for work/hobby, or even does compsci/EE/physics type stuff that could be considered magic needs to use the rules to represent those things rather than being asked to demonstrate levitation climb a wall or even disable/bypass a security system such as a lock. People wanting the social stuff to be "just roleplay it" are asking to di that instead of being bound by rules like everyone else

 

[TwoSix]

I think this is a simplification. What I know is in earlier editions I had a much easier time focusing on RP, and handling it free-form. Were there knowledges and other rules in earlier editions? Yes, but most of those rules were optional and they didn't interfere with RP (at least the rules provided in the core books: expansion material was all over the place). It really depends on what edition and rules, so maybe there are mechanics you have in mind. But even things like CHR reaction were easy to handle without getting in the way of RP. And yes you had rules for things like sensing secret doors, but those were largely passive, and it just wasn't as complete as a system for non-combat stuff as you find in 3E. Also so many of those rules were not obvious. Try reading through the 2E PHB and see how differently it handles these things. It isn't that the game has no material for non-physical abilities of characters. But try looking up rules for things like a generic detect. I am not saying those kinds of things can't be found. Often they can, but they are often buried, optional, or firmly placed in the hands of the GM. And in the case of NWPs like Etiquette they specifically state they do not replace RP.

But I think you're still making the point that for your style of play, freeform RP (DM-player negotiation) is something you like and want more of. You don't want the rules to "interfere". I think I'm reading you correctly here?

I know (and play with!) several other people who feel the same way, I'm just wondering why there aren't more systems that cut out the parts of the game that would actually hinder roleplaying in that manner (like social skills, or INT and CHA scores.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

But I think you're still making the point that for your style of play, freeform RP (DM-player negotiation) is something you like and want more of. You don't want the rules to "interfere". I think I'm reading you correctly here?

I know (and play with!) several other people who feel the same way, I'm just wondering why there aren't more systems that cut out the parts of the game that would actually hinder roleplaying in that manner (like social skills, or INT and CHA scores.)

I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd.

A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).

 

[TwoSix]

you might be stretching to use he word "large" but I'll give you "vocal". There are very important reasons not to do that however. I'm quite sure that a wide array of monsters and npcs should be dramatically more skilled at social interaction than the average player, above average player, elite player, & even the most elite player when it comes to social interaction. Add to that the fact that a player who happens to have taken a self defense course, does athletics/acrobatics related stuff for work/hobby, or even does compsci/EE/physics type stuff that could be considered magic needs to use the rules to represent those things rather than being asked to demonstrate levitation climb a wall or even disable/bypass a security system such as a lock. People wanting the social stuff to be "just roleplay it" are asking to di that instead of being bound by rules like everyone else

I'm not sure why it's "important" to not do it. The first part you mention is primarily about the fidelity of simulation, which may or may not be important for a given play group.

And again, most people I know totally OK with letting the rule set handle magic skills or physical capabilities, it's specifically the social skills that a large amount of people people like to handle freeform. That's totally OK as a game preference, I'm just wondering why it hasn't been catered to.

 

[TwoSix]

I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd.

A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).

So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores? Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't? I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire. To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.

 

[prabe]

So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores? Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't? I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire. To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.

I think there are people who don't mind lore/knowledge skills, but are bothered by social skills. I think @Bedrockgames has said things elsewhere that lead me to believe they're in that camp.

EDIT: And they said so very clearly in the post below.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores? Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't? I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire. To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.

This isn't what I am saying. Again, things in online discussions tend to be very extreme and binary (you are for X and against Y). I said things like having rules for INT never bothered me the way having a rule for diplomacy did, or having generic Spot and Gather information Skills. It never troubled me if the GM occasionally called for an INT roll for whatever reason, because I rarely found that interfered with the type of freeform RP i liked to do. Would I mind a game that didn't have an INT score? No not at all. Do I think D&D shouldn't have INT? No, because it is useful for lots of things in play.

I think the problem is you keep trying to frame my preferences a certain way, or at least frame freeform RP a certain way. I know what it is you have in mind, I have seen this preference expressed online. But my preferences are more 'moderate' around this subject. I don't mind for example if my character has an 18 INT and I am struggling to piece together clues in a mystery, if the GM says "Okay give me an INT roll" and if I succeed the GM saying something a bit to nudge me like "You seem to recall the man with the eagle tattoo who gave you the package....that tattoo looks like the same kind of eagle in this cage".

I don't mind my character having an INT score at all. But I do like having the experience of trying to solve the puzzle without reducing it to a series of rolls. Like I said, most preferences are muddy. The internet deals with stark things (you said you like X two pages ago, but now you are telling me you also like Y, and those seem mutually exlusive to me....well human preferences are muddy and complicated and not binary, they are often more about the ratio of X, Y and Z being in the game).