D&D General Styles of Roleplaying and Characters

[pemerton]

@The-Magic-Sword

Were the character interactions you're describing PC-to-PC, PC-to-NPC or both? I think these two sorts of interactions raise different questions about systems. Just as one example, the GM is available as a referee, if necessary, in PC-to-PC interaction. But is not in the same position for PC-to-NPC given that the GM has a stake in one side of that!

 

[Oofta]

I am not entirely sure these all that separate. As we'll see in a moment...



So, with respect, etiquette is a set of rules. So, you were using rules, just awkward ones. We have to go one level down to see why you need any rules at all.

The broad analogy I'd use is... Cops and Robbers. When kids are all happy, and not terribly invested in any particular outcome, it goes smoothly - fingers get pointed, kids shout "Bang!" and everyone has a good time. So long as nobody cares, we don't need rules.

But eventually, someone actually cares about what the outcome is. Then the arguments start: I shot you! No you didn't! Yes I did! Yeah, well I'm wearing a bullet poof vest, and the bullet bounced off! Oh yeah, well the bullet bounces off the wall and hits you in the eye! Nuh uh, 'cuz I have bulletproof goggles...

Rules exist, in part, to arbitrate and prevent this. We agree upon the mechanism for resolving things, and we have our expectations set, and we eliminate a great many awkward moments. Rules are by no means the only way to do this, but they are a common and handy one.

Thus, when you want a game to be about X, and you tell us it is about X, the people picking it up are likely interested in X. And then, you can expect that folks will eventually care about the outcome of an instance of X. And it will become awkward if you don't have some established way to handle it.



When players enter into combat, they have some ideas of what the results might be. They know the rules, can judge risks, chances of success, and so on.

Your system... doesn't have that. The rules are not where the players can see. It is in the opaque system of the GM's judgement. There's no clear way to judge risks, chances of success, or know what the results might be - the player's ability to make informed decisions is extremely limited, unless they've learned how the GM's head works.

Also, if you are writing a system in which these social interactions are supposed to be a significant influence on how the game unfolds... do you want to leave that up to the individual GM? No. You hand the GM a system for those interactions, to help enforce the flavor of experience your game is intended to produce!

For some of us, we don't want a mechanically determined outcome because that's not how personal interactions work. If you have a set of systematic rules then people will tend to play to the rules, not to the person they're interfacing with.

Of course, different people want different things.

 

[Ovinomancer]

For some of us, we don't want a mechanically determined outcome because that's not how personal interactions work. If you have a set of systematic rules then people will tend to play to the rules, not to the person they're interfacing with.

Of course, different people want different things.

And your evidence of this is....

 

[Oofta]

And your evidence of this is....

Oh, right. I have no right to an opinion. Thanks for reminding me that I'm just an ignoramus know-nothing that can't extrapolate from other gaming experiences because I have had neither the time nor opportunity to get a doctorate in gaming theology. I've never been exposed to other DMs who took a mechanical approach like we did in 3.5 or skill challenges in 4E. Silly me.

Thanks for reminding me so quickly that you are far superior.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Oh, right. I have no right to an opinion. Thanks for reminding me that I'm just an ignoramus know-nothing that can't extrapolate from other gaming experiences because I have had neither the time nor opportunity to get a doctorate in gaming theology. I've never been exposed to other DMs who took a mechanical approach like we did in 3.5 or skill challenges in 4E. Silly me.

Thanks for reminding me so quickly that you are far superior.

Oh please, don't play this bait and switch game. This isn't presented as an opinion: "If you have a set of systematic rules then people will tend to play to the rules, not to the person they're interfacing with." You try to assert bold statements about games where you have no evidence except your own conjecture and then complain when challenged that you're not being allowed to have an opinion. It's rather silly-looking. Not to mention that how are we to trust your opinions about how people would really react when your can't produce evidence for a far simpler claim?

I mean, this shows your first statement that personal interactions aren't government by mechanics is specious -- they're not governed by your thinking, either. Any argument that starts by saying that you can't get authentic interactions using mechanics cannot then go onto implying that your judgement alone (as GM) does.

And asking you to support your claims is not a statement of my superiority -- what a strange thing to try to claim, one that looks like you're trying to start a fight.

 

[Oofta]

Oh please, don't play this bait and switch game. This isn't presented as an opinion: "If you have a set of systematic rules then people will tend to play to the rules, not to the person they're interfacing with." You try to assert bold statements about games where you have no evidence except your own conjecture and then complain when challenged that you're not being allowed to have an opinion. It's rather silly-looking. Not to mention that how are we to trust your opinions about how people would really react when your can't produce evidence for a far simpler claim?

I mean, this shows your first statement that personal interactions aren't government by mechanics is specious -- they're not governed by your thinking, either. Any argument that starts by saying that you can't get authentic interactions using mechanics cannot then go onto implying that your judgement alone (as GM) does.

And asking you to support your claims is not a statement of my superiority -- what a strange thing to try to claim, one that looks like you're trying to start a fight.

I was responding to umbran's post. They made what they want quite clear. "There's no clear way to judge risks, chances of success, or know what the results might be ..." I've played games where the there was a clear way to judge risk and chances of success for non-combat encounters. I didn't like the results.

I don't want a systematic approach to the social aspects of the game. That's not criticizing people who do. It's not criticizing other game systems. Yes, it means that you have to trust the DM instead of a set of systematic rules. I'm okay with that. I already have to trust the DM to not throw a balrog at our first level party - at least no without the chance to escape. If I don't trust the DM, I'll run my own game or find a different DM.

I am entitled to an opinion no matter how much you tell me that I'm too stupid to know what effect it would have.

 

[Maxperson]

Doesn't better here just mean Lanefan might enjoy it more? If I'm sitting down with a group to play a WPM-ish dungeon crawl, I don't think I need to hear all about the gnome's fear of heights and hatred of fish.

Why not? There might be some deep pits or high walls to climb, or even some underwater sections with some piscine inhabitants. It would be both relevant and fun.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I was responding to umbran's post. They made what they want quite clear. "There's no clear way to judge risks, chances of success, or know what the results might be ..." I've played games where the there was a clear way to judge risk and chances of success for non-combat encounters. I didn't like the results.

I don't want a systematic approach to the social aspects of the game. That's not criticizing people who do. It's not criticizing other game systems. Yes, it means that you have to trust the DM instead of a set of systematic rules. I'm okay with that. I already have to trust the DM to not throw a balrog at our first level party - at least no without the chance to escape. If I don't trust the DM, I'll run my own game or find a different DM.

I am entitled to an opinion no matter how much you tell me that I'm too stupid to know what effect it would have.

Good. This is an opinion. I mean, I struggle to associate this with your previously professed inexperience with other systems and would assume this applies to 3.x's diplomancer rules (which are terrible), but at least it's a clear statement of personal preference and not a sweeping claim about games. Carry on.

 

[Oofta]

Good. This is an opinion. I mean, I struggle to associate this with your previously professed inexperience with other systems and would assume this applies to 3.x's diplomancer rules (which are terrible), but at least it's a clear statement of personal preference and not a sweeping claim about games. Carry on.

Which is what I repeatedly keep stating. It's a personal opinion. It's never been about other games or people's preferences.

 

[Scott Christian]

The context I wanted to provide is that having a script to work off of and time to do research/prepare for the role makes it much easier to have a meaningful understand of who the character is, what they want, etc. That given all resources they have available professional actors still often feel they could have done things much better after the fact.

For me those formative stages where I am in initial stages of creating/discovering the role or in an RPG doing the initial authorship for a character are much harder and more invigorating, but like difficult stuff. We're talking about a whole person with a life, relationships, goals, etc. Making decisions while in these initial stages if I'm taking the character seriously is really tough stuff because I am still trying to get a sense for who they might be.

I would think a historical reenactor, such as someone who portrays Thomas Jefferson, etc. could discuss the finer points of all this. Anyone here fit that bill?