Why Jargon is Bad, and Some Modern Resources for RPG Theory

[overgeeked]

For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game.

The PCs’ plan rests on a guard, make a roll to see how vigilant the guard is. The PCs’ want to try to seduce or persuade the guard, make a roll to see how susceptible the guard is.

And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.

 

[Bedrockgames]

For me, most of that is a very good reason for opposed rolls or rolled DCs. I don’t have to figure all that out. I can just roll, see what the dice says, and go from there. It’s also a great way to reduce referee bias. I don’t decide how tough or amicable the guard is, the dice do. Unless they’re loaded, the dice are always fair. The same cannot be said of the meat-sack running the game.

The PCs’ plan rests on a guard, make a roll to see how vigilant the guard is. The PCs’ want to try to seduce or persuade the guard, make a roll to see how susceptible the guard is.

And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.

Which is fine, but for those of us who like the puzzle solving and RP aspect, the reason a single roll for it (whether it be something like a Bluff or Diplomacy--and I understand those particular mechanics are often much more nuanced if you actually read them and apply them as written) is it can bypass the planning the PCs do, the things they actually say, etc. Sometimes if you give the guard a 50 dollar bill, it should work 100% of the time. Where I would introduce a random element (and it might not be in the form of a social skill roll but it could be) is when that is unclear to me when I am running the NPC). And granted you can bestow a bonus if the players do particularly excellent things in their planning. But at that point, you are effectively stacking the deck anyways because you are persuaded by their plan yourself and if you were just dealing with the RP you'd probably green light the guard submitting to them.

Again, I am easy going in play. I am not going to ruin anyone's time if they like rolling for this (and plenty of people do). But I've found these kinds of mechanics, since I became aware of them, muck with an aspect of play that is very enojyable to me. Now other people might enjoy this same aspect of play and find rolling enhances it. I am not saying my experience is the objective one experience. The time it was most clear to me the difference it made was when I shifted from running Ravenloft in 3rd edition (which has a lot of social and investigatory skills) to Ravenloft using 2E (which is the system I played Ravenloft with). I remember having the distinct feeling when I would play Ravenoft 3E that it just felt off. And I often chalked the difference up to nostalgia because I had played Ravenloft 2E in the 90s from high school into my early 20s. SO I figured it might just have been that it was a formative early game experience. But the moment I changed systems, it felt like the old days again. And the difference was in things like social mechanics (in 2E the closest you had in the PHB to that was the Etiquette Non-weapon proficiency but that was a knowledge roll that specifically mentions it doesn't replace roleplaying: in the Skills and powers books I think there were more options but I didn't use those as they came very late in the 2E run; some of the setting books offered up other NWPs, but NWPs themselves were optional and any additional ones offered in supplements entirely at the GMs discretion). There were other reasons too (3e combat feels very different for example, CR ratings are much more integral to 3rd edition). And I had played plenty of other systems that had and did not have social skills but seeing how that played out in the same setting with different editions (where one edition had social skills and the other didn't) laid it out pretty clearly for me.

Again, sure some people wouldn't have this experience at all. But I always found those Bluff, Sense Motive, Diplomacy and even Gather information, racially changed how the game felt to me

 

[Bedrockgames]

And frankly, the referee shouldn’t be worried about a roll bypassing a chunk of their prep. If a single roll can bypass a chunk of your prep you’ve prepped the wrong stuff.

I think I take a different view here, which sufficiently clever or lucky players should always be able to 'beat the adventure' instantly if they find an instant win. Whether I have a lot of prep, or just expected they would be occupied with dealing with a particular challenge for a longer period of time, I think a truly exciting aspect of play is granting wins, no matter how much they might seem to circumvent the 'story' the 'campaign' the 'adventure' the 'dungeon' or 'the prep'. A single roll being able to bypass what the GM has prepped is fine by me. Sometimes those kind of unexpected breaks are exciting developments.

 

[pemerton]

It's due the words people have been writing.

Seriously, at this point I don't even understand what people want to get out of RPGs.

That could be you cue to rethink your reading of what people are writing.

For instance, you suggested that @hawkeyefan and I want to roll dice to skip social interactions. Whereas we both posted about resolving social interactions.

Given that the thread has moved on several pages, and peeking ahead at just one of them I see that @hawkeyefan has replied making some similar points to mine, but with more elaboration, I'll leave it at that for the moment.

 

[pemerton]

Holmes is sort of manic depressive emotionally stunted unconventional genius. You only need the rules to help with the genius part.

Do you? Back in my Rolemaster days, if a player felt that their PC was suffering some sort of emotional or mental trauma they would often call for a roll on the Depression critical table. They felt it made more sense, in the inhabitation of their characters, for the mental state of the character to manifest via the resolution process.

Conversely, if Holmes is depressed but this is only colour and has no effect on his prospects of doing things, then in terms of RPGing is he really depressed?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think


I definitely would agree they do not. I think there are reasons combat tends to be resolved mechanically more than social stuff in RPGs, that aren't related to realism (I think part of it may be we expect combat to be exciting and unpredictable as part of the fun).

I think this is really the kind of last word thing. Its fun. I mean, the draw of having combat as an activity in the game is SO YOU CAN ROLL DICE. Its just been accepted that fighting is the dice rolly part, and social is the purely talky part, and that is just how it is (at least in a good chunk of RPG play). Explanations won't really illuminate anything beyond that.

 

[pemerton]

I absolutely wouldn't want PC decisions to resolved via a dice roll. My role as a player is to make decisions for my character, so if we outsource that to the rules or the dice, I no longer need to be there.

This reinforces my suggestion that you might want to reread what some posters are saying.

I'm not describing a context where the player no longer needs to be there. Your remark actually reminds me of people who say that in a game that uses a non-D&D authority structure the GM no longer needs to be there - but obviously the role of the GM in a system like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel is fundamental.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It’s not weird or hard to get. I absolutely understand the point.

I just think the similarity isn’t nearly as meaningful as you do.

Right, I'm of the same mind. Two players at a table talking bears almost no resemblance to a Dwarf Ranger bargaining with a Green Dragon for the life of his friend. It is just not equivalent at all. I can tell you FOR SURE it is not equivalent to bargaining with a guy who is holding a gun!

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Do you? Back in my Rolemaster days, if a player felt that their PC was suffering some sort of emotional or mental trauma they would often call for a roll on the Depression critical table.

I am sure they could!

They felt it made more sense, in the inhabitation of their characters, for the mental state of the character to manifest via the resolution process.

Conversely, if Holmes is depressed but this is only colour and has no effect on his prospects of doing things, then in terms of RPGing is he really depressed?

That it is not in the rules doesn't make it mere colour. And of course it has an effect about how he does things, if faithfully roleplayed (and why wouldn't it?) Also, if the player doesn't determine the mental state of their character, what they're doing then? Just replace the player with mental state and reaction charts!

Have you done a lot of freeform RP or participated in LARPs? Rules are not really terribly necessary for roleplaying. They're what I would call an optional extra.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This reinforces my suggestion that you might want to reread what some posters are saying.

I'm not describing a context where the player no longer needs to be there. Your remark actually reminds me of people who say that in a game that uses a non-D&D authority structure the GM no longer needs to be there - but obviously the role of the GM in a system like Apocalypse World or Burning Wheel is fundamental.

You literally resolved how the knights would behave regarding the lady via a fellowship roll.