D&D General Testing Players

[Charlaquin]

Absolutely not.

Why is it only skillful characters get subjected to this stuff? Nobody's asking the Wizard to learn how to perform actual magic tricks (let alone literal magic) in order to cast spells. Why do people keep inventing extra hurdles for the mundane characters in the party?

I actually think the idea of having the player create different magic words and gestures for each spell and perform them when they cast them could be pretty neat. But as a fun (optional) creative and performance exercise, not as a requirement to cast a spell.

Why are so many people so dead-set on making everything stupidly difficult unless it's solved by magic? And why do so many people then complain that magic is too prevalent and needs to be nerfed or made foolishly dangerous?

I just...I don't get what people are getting out of all this. What's the point? Why is it fun to have to jump through hoops (perhaps literally?!?) before you're allowed to enjoy the cool stuff your character is capable of doing?

I actually think the product itself is pretty neat. It’s just the notion of using it in place of an ability check that’s nonsense.

 

[payn]

Absolutely not.

Why is it only skillful characters get subjected to this stuff? Nobody's asking the Wizard to learn how to perform actual magic tricks (let alone literal magic) in order to cast spells. Why do people keep inventing extra hurdles for the mundane characters in the party?

Why are so many people so dead-set on making everything stupidly difficult unless it's solved by magic? And why do so many people then complain that magic is too prevalent and needs to be nerfed or made foolishly dangerous?

I just...I don't get what people are getting out of all this. What's the point? Why is it fun to have to jump through hoops (perhaps literally?!?) before you're allowed to enjoy the cool stuff your character is capable of doing?

 

[Mort]

I actually think the idea of having the player create different magic words and gestures for each spell and perform them when they cast them could be pretty neat. But as a fun (optional) creative and performance exercise, not as a requirement to cast a spell.

My (relatively) newest player did this for his bard. Decided the bard uses Haiku to cast - and came up with a different haiku for each of his spells. Still doing it at level 9.

I thought it was a great touch.

 

[payn]

My (relatively) newest player did this for his bard. Decided the bard uses Haiku to cast - and came up with a different haiku for each of his spells. Still doing it at level 9.

I thought it was a great touch.

In PF1 Jade Regent adventure path I had a cavalier character. He had a taunt enemy ability and I had 101 different quips to toss at his enemies during combat. Was a lot of fun!

 

[Reynard]

If your entire plot can come to a standstill because the characters can't find a secret door, or some other one off roll, then yes, there is a problem. It's basically the reason why Fail Forward for some checks is a thing.

You don't have to fail forward, just don't gate progress.

 

[James Gasik]

In PF1 Jade Regent adventure path I had a cavalier character. He had a taunt enemy ability and I had 101 different quips to toss at his enemies during combat. Was a lot of fun!

I did something like this for my 4e Bard's Vicious Mockery. I agree, it's a lot of fun.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I actually think the idea of having the player create different magic words and gestures for each spell and perform them when they cast them could be pretty neat. But as a fun (optional) creative and performance exercise, not as a requirement to cast a spell.

My (relatively) newest player did this for his bard. Decided the bard uses Haiku to cast - and came up with a different haiku for each of his spells. Still doing it at level 9.

I thought it was a great touch.

In PF1 Jade Regent adventure path I had a cavalier character. He had a taunt enemy ability and I had 101 different quips to toss at his enemies during combat. Was a lot of fun!

I did something like this for my 4e Bard's Vicious Mockery. I agree, it's a lot of fun.

Collecting a bunch of responses together here:
As a purely opt-in player choice to enhance the experience of play, you won't hear any disagreement from me. But we aren't talking about an opt-in choice here. This would be the DM  declaring that every cast of vicious mockery has to be a unique and sufficiently nasty insult, or else the spell just fails...and the target still gets a saving throw even if you pass the "does the DM think you insulted hard enough" test.

You don't have to fail forward, just don't gate progress.

I don't understand how this differs.

I actually think the product itself is pretty neat. It’s just the notion of using it in place of an ability check that’s nonsense.

Not intending to cast shade on the product, only the concept of "let's make players jump through hoops before they're allowed to have fun playing." The product is simply the most egregious form of a pattern I see a LOT. A pattern which gets passed off as though it were more serious or somehow genuine than other styles of play where players aren't required to earn the right to participate.

 

[Charlaquin]

Collecting a bunch of responses together here:
As a purely opt-in player choice to enhance the experience of play, you won't hear any disagreement from me. But we aren't talking about an opt-in choice here. This would be the DM  declaring that every cast of vicious mockery has to be a unique and sufficiently nasty insult, or else the spell just fails...and the target still gets a saving throw even if you pass the "does the DM think you insulted hard enough" test.


I don't understand how this differs.


Not intending to cast shade on the product, only the concept of "let's make players jump through hoops before they're allowed to have fun playing." The product is simply the most egregious form of a pattern I see a LOT. A pattern which gets passed off as though it were more serious or somehow genuine than other styles of play where players aren't required to earn the right to participate.

I don’t disagree with you that such hoop-jumping is nonsense; my point is just that this product isn’t intrinsically a hoop to jump through. It’s a product. They just decided to market it as a hoop to jump through, which, granted, was a dumb decision. But I dunno, I feel like that decision is dominating the conversation when it ultimately has pretty little to do with the actual product.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don’t disagree with you that such hoop-jumping is nonsense; my point is just that this product isn’t intrinsically a hoop to jump through. It’s a product. They just decided to market it as a hoop to jump through, which, granted, was a dumb decision. But I dunno, I feel like that decision is dominating the conversation when it ultimately has pretty little to do with the actual product.

I would be less inclined to focus on that if the title of the thread were not "Testing Players." That is, the product seems to be an illustrative example of the thread topic (which the OP opposes). A different, personal example was included after, as a bit of self-effacing contrast, since it was one Renard personally asked a player to perform (solving a sudoku to shut down a nuclear reactor beginning to meltdown.)

"Testing players" is a crappy thing to do unless the players seek it out or actively support the inclusion of such tests. The tests themselves may be perfectly cromulent as individual activities. I have enjoyed solving a sudoku puzzle or two, for example. It is the act of turning these things into tests that players must pass that is an issue, and that would seem to be the intended topic of discussion.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A bad solution to a problem that I am not sure really exists.

Exactly. Also the premise only applies to some groups in the first place. I’ve seen fighters with thieves tools, and a lot of rogues that don’t put expertise in tools, and I’ve seen characters focused on that use thieves tools for things other than locks and traps.

I think a better solution to the perceived problem is to ask players to read what is in a tool kit and enumerate each thing on their sheet, and then be flexible with how tools can be used.