Solving the "Just Roleplay it..." problem...

[GMMichael]

Old school gamers are always complaining about "just roleplay it," but I have rarely encountered anyone who deliberately handicaps their own social, insightful, or reasoning skills when playing D&D. And I think that offering some kind of in-game reward for doing so would probably make people more likely to do it. And it might be "better" (or at least more transparent) to have a system like that rather than simply declaring "people should/will do that."

So, like offering a bonus die or power to a future roll for a PC using his own flaw against himself? That was my solution, anyway. Fate does this too with Compels, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think that you  need a separate system for mental encounters. Especially if the base game is flexible. But it would be a nice change of gears to do something different than Attack Rolls For Everything.

 

[bloodtide]

Do they, and are they, though?

Old school gamers are always complaining about "just roleplay it," but I have rarely encountered anyone who deliberately handicaps their own social, insightful, or reasoning skills when playing D&D. And I think that offering some kind of in-game reward for doing so would probably make people more likely to do it. And it might be "better" (or at least more transparent) to have a system like that rather than simply declaring "people should/will do that."

It's fairly common for good role players that have smarts, wisdom or social skills to role play being lesser then they are. For example one of my players, Jill is a Doctor: she plays a crazy not too bright dwarven cleric, as that is fun for her. You don't need a reward for the good people: they do it willing.

You don't really need a reward for the bad person, who has some real world skill and makes a character of poor skill and then uses their own skills to ignore that.

You only need the rewards for the poor players that have no skills in real life.

That's sorta the point I was getting at. Some of these mental stats are player-constrained. What is the best way to address that?

Well, like I said, nothing much can be done for the people with no real skills in the focus of the game. In real life you could get them real life help.

That's a clever idea. I mean, it still requires the DM to either know, or guess at, what the "right" result/action would be, but there's not really any way to get around the limitation of a DM. But I think something like this could work.

There just really is no fix for the players with low or no smarts, wisdom or social skills You can't change or help people with a game.

 

[JohnSnow]

It's fairly common for good role players that have smarts, wisdom or social skills to role play being lesser then they are. For example one of my players, Jill is a Doctor: she plays a crazy not too bright dwarven cleric, as that is fun for her. You don't need a reward for the good people: they do it willing.

You don't really need a reward for the bad person, who has some real world skill and makes a character of poor skill and then uses their own skills to ignore that.

You only need the rewards for the poor players that have no skills in real life.

Well, like I said, nothing much can be done for the people with no real skills in the focus of the game. In real life you could get them real life help.


There just really is no fix for the players with low or no smarts, wisdom or social skills You can't change or help people with a game.

I don’t think that encouraging good roleplaying with mechanical benefits is a bad idea. YMMV.

 

[bloodtide]

I don’t think that encouraging good roleplaying with mechanical benefits is a bad idea. YMMV.

I'm just saying you don't really need to do it for a good person who is a good role player.

 

[payn]

I don’t think that encouraging good roleplaying with mechanical benefits is a bad idea. YMMV.

I'd like to expand a little on my earlier comments about this. I stopped using XP in my games because it lead my players a little too much by the nose. It encouraged metagaming and discouraged clever play (at my tables of course). By eliminating XP and going to milestone my players became a lot more curious, creative, proactive, and just all around more adventurous. So, im not of the mind that specific mechanics improve play in a particular way. I feel it often does the opposite.

Of course, that is purely philosophical. I have had many discussions here on EN World and other places about the above. Some folks want specific instruction from the game rules to inform them of what is in bounds and out of bounds. They want a specific play loop detailed out so they know how to play the game. I know many players like this so these mechanical ideas can work well for them.

Except nearby everyone can say that they use the strength in a fictional descriptive way. It's easy to say "Karg picks up the boulder".

But the people that don't have the ability to do so, can never role play a clever idea, or figure out a mystery or make a plan. And you can't fake it with rules. Bob is clueless and can't figure anything out. Bob rolls a d20 and asks the DM for a solution. The DM tells Bob the solution and then Bob "role plays" that his character figured it out. In no real way does Bob "feel" like he figured anything out: he was just told the answer by the DM.

I dont really understand the distinction here. You dont have to describe how Karg stretches out and ripples his muscles as he bends at the knees and fully describe how he actually lifts the boulder. He just lifts the heavy ass boulder because he is really strong. I dont see why a clever idea, deducing a mystery, or coming up with a plan requires the player themselves being smart enough or having to describe it in detail how it happens.

 

[JohnSnow]

I'd like to expand a little on my earlier comments about this. I stopped using XP in my games because it lead my players a little too much by the nose. It encouraged metagaming and discouraged clever play (at my tables of course). By eliminating XP and going to milestone my players became a lot more curious, creative, proactive, and just all around more adventurous. So, im not of the mind that specific mechanics improve play in a particular way. I feel it often does the opposite

Of course, that is purely philosophical. I have had many discussions here on EN World and other places about the above. Some folks want specific instruction from the game rules to inform them of what is in bounds and out of bounds. They want a specific play loop detailed out so they know how to play the game. I know many players like this so these mechanical ideas can work well for them.

I think that there's a sweet spot between over-complicating mechanics that limit player creativity, and relying entirely on DM fiat for resolution. I think my ideal system would have something like (and I'm just using combat as an example here, but this could apply to any game subsystem):

"Your character may choose to attempt any of a variety of 'stunts' or special maneuvers as part of your attack. Doing so imposes an X penalty on your attack roll, but if you are successful, you may add the effects of the maneuver in question. A sample of maneuvers the PC might attempt include:

• Disarming Strike
• Trip attack
• Push attack
• Cleaving attack
• Etc. (maybe 7-10 obvious options)...

"The preceding list is not comprehensive. Players are encouraged to be creative."

And then provide guidelines for the DM on how to adjudicate what mechanical effect the stunt has. It would be real nice not to have to look up rules for every freaking corner case thing.

I dont really understand the distinction here. You dont have to describe how Karg stretches out and ripples his muscles as he bends at the knees and fully describe how he actually lifts the boulder. He just lifts the heavy ass boulder because he is really strong. I dont see why a clever idea, deducing a mystery, or coming up with a plan requires the player themselves being smart enough or having to describe it in detail how it happens.

I'll give an example. Should I, as someone who has trained as a sword fighter for 20 years, get some kind of success bonus for describing my character's attack or defense well? If my description lends to immersion at the table, and makes combat more interesting, why don't the rules support that? If not (and I know very few tables that would be okay with this), why do we treat social interactions and exploration differently in this regard?

 

[payn]

I'll give an example. Should I, as someone who has trained as a sword fighter for 20 years, get some kind of success bonus for describing my character's attack or defense well? If my description lends to immersion at the table, and makes combat more interesting, why don't the rules support that? If not (and I know very few tables that would be okay with this), why do we treat social interactions and exploration differently in this regard?

Well combat has very tangible results. You hit or you miss. Apply damage, or an effect, perhaps nothing. There is a pile of systems that represent how this plays out. Im not opposed to social and exploration mechanics to make the game more uniform in this regard. However, I do like social/exploration mechanics to be general, easy to apply, and reasonable.

I do like FFG gensys narrative dice system, and Mongoose Travellers effect mechanic. Instead of a binary do or do not, you can have a degree of success/failure. I think that is key to a less tangible aspect of TTRPGs like the social pillar. I think you can have a wide variety of more rich play within that style of design.

As to the above, no I don't think you should get any bonus for talking about the character's combat prowess. I also dont think you should get any bonus for talking about being a real smooth talker, or an exceptional acrobat, etc... I think the game mechanics should speak for themselves. Your character is a good swordsman because you chose that path for them. Now engage the system with the tool kit your PC has been provided.

 

[JohnSnow]

Well combat has very tangible results. You hit or you miss. Apply damage, or an effect, perhaps nothing. There is a pile of systems that represent how this plays out. Im not opposed to social and exploration mechanics to make the game more uniform in this regard. However, I do like social/exploration mechanics to be general, easy to apply, and reasonable.

I do like FFG gensys narrative dice system, and Mongoose Travellers effect mechanic. Instead of a binary do or do not, you can have a degree of success/failure. I think that is key to a less tangible aspect of TTRPGs like the social pillar. I think you can have a wide variety of more rich play within that style of design.

I honestly think that the degree of success/failure is one of the most powerful tools available in game design. And while I agree that it is absolutely essential to the game's less tangible aspects (social and exploration), it also feels like if it were well-designed, it could greatly enrich a combat and stunt system.

Rather than, for example, ever-escalating DC's, we simply have a system for a narrow range of them, followed by a system for tracking how easily/amazingly you accomplished said task. I feel like this lends itself readily to improving the narrative descriptions.

I'm thinking here of the opening scene of Raiders of the Lost Ark, where we get to see Indy narrowly succeed at his Athletics check to cross the field of darts to reach the golden idol, then (catastrophically?) fail in his attempt to subvert the counterweight trap, successfully avoid damage from the triggered field of darts as he's running, then watch Satipo botch the swing attempt to cross the pit, thus dislodging the whip. And then we get to see Indy narrowly fail his (harder) attempt to jump the same pit. And so on.

I find degrees of success to be very helpful in adjudicating anything PCs attempt. And I could totally see a more robust system being of use in a combat scene as well.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I probably overstated things with "rarely."

While I have encountered that better sort of player a fair bit, I have rarely encountered a game where I didn't have at least one player who tried to bypass a character's mental weakness with good roleplay when their results depended on it.

It's really difficult to not do that, often without really realizing it.

 

[bloodtide]

I dont really understand the distinction here. You dont have to describe how Karg stretches out and ripples his muscles as he bends at the knees and fully describe how he actually lifts the boulder. He just lifts the heavy ass boulder because he is really strong. I dont see why a clever idea, deducing a mystery, or coming up with a plan requires the player themselves being smart enough or having to describe it in detail how it happens.

Nearly anyone who can think and speak can describe a basic, straightforward action. It's even beyond easy for most people.

If a person is not smart, wise or social they outright cannot pretend to be or "role play" doing it.

It's not about details at the most basic. Though, naturaly the more complex the frame work, the more complex the details will need to be.

Ask nearly anyone "Who would Klarg move a boulder?" and they could answer "just pick it up and toss it". NO details needed.

Ask someone who is not smart how would they escape from the dungeon cell, and they will just look at you with a blank look. They can't do it.