Extensive Character Sheets Are GM Oppression

[Snarf Zagyg]

Do any of us really know what's required to plan and prepare for going on a wagon expedition?

Wait .... are you saying that all the time I spent playing Oregon Trail was WASTED???

 

[GMMichael]

@GMMichael
The reason for the initial controversy over the Thief class was that it made certain abilities ... like hiding in shadows and climbing walls and listening at doors ... enumerated and specific abilities within a particular class. For many players, this was an encroachment on the Arnesonian space- these were all abilities that any character, from Fighter to Magic User, should be able to do! In effect, by codifying abilities to a certain class (expressing them as thief abilities), the game system was also excluding those abilities to others.

If the character sheet says "Climb Walls - 45%" then the GM can tell the player how good he is. If the player writes "expert climber" on the sheet, it's the other way around. Until the dice get their say.

ETA- in D&D terms, I tend to refer to the open and non-codified space for players as "Arnesonian negative space," while I suppose you could refer to the explicit codification as "Gygaxian rules space." But that jargon, and ten dollars, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

Or espresso and a donut at these indie local joints...

The character sheet tells you what you need to know about the character in the context of the game system. the blank spaces might offer "freedom" for details, but they don't offer an endless list of unspecified skills and abilities. Why stop at being a wainwright. Why not an alchemist or a dragon rider or a dreamwalker? Because what is on your sheet tells you what you can do as it relates to the system.

My player wanders into that "endless list" problem. But I think it's how he role-plays, so it ends up being kinda fun.

Maybe it's just me, but I'd like to be able to write "dragon rider" on my sheet without the GM telling me "no." Some games allow that. The point is that if there's no "dragon rider" or "not dragon rider" printed line on the character sheet, the PC has the freedom to imagine it. The purpose of the character sheet, and not the character novel, is to tie that character to the game, so it should probably have some other information on how the whole dragon-riding-thing is going to work out.

Some games like Fate are built to give you freedom on the sheet, but they still limit you to what you end up writing down. You can't just assume you have a previously unstated Aspect "Raised a wainwright" because it might be convenient at the moment.

Let's not get into filling out character sheets during play.

If this were true then in real life I’d be an excellent carpenter. But I cannot even saw a branch off a tree even though figuring out how a saw works is quite easy.

On a minimalist character sheet, you have to fill in the blanks. But yes, "I'm smart so I can do everything" is not a helpful DRPG argument.

In the largest example: D&D - if you aren't trained in appropriate tools, you can still make a check to fix your wagon. It is just less likely to succeed.

But what if your character sheet doesn't specify how trained you are?

 

[Reynard]

Let's not get into filling out character sheets during play.

It isn't a bad solution for certain styles of games. I have run games where the players reserved some amount of "character generation resources" (depending on the system) and got to define them in play as it comes up. I like it in part because I think the best media approximation for RPGs are the semi-serial ensemble action dramas from the 90s and 00s (Buffy, X-Files, etc). Characters in those shows have background elements revealed all the time, and holding back skill points or Aspects or whatever emulates that pretty well.

 

[Pedantic]

I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer, but there are preferences. I would say that rules-lite games tend to go toward one end, whereas games like D&D 3e and 4e tend to the other.

It's a regular source of frustration for me when the lumping/splitting on this issue puts 3e and 4e together here. 4e, especially with skill challenges taken into consideration, is best understood either as a 3rd rail (player action declarations falling outside the rules should generally be validated and negotiated into a generic resolution model) or as belonging on the other side from 3e, if we're insisting on a binary. 4e might, using page 42, be understood to provide a resolution method for an unexpected player action, but that's more similar to roll-under attribute checks with scaling built in than 3e's defined DCs for skill usage. 3e specifies actions and subsystem interactions, and legitimately expects them to cover and define viable player declarations.

5e's less specific skill system is an evolutionary line from 4e, not a return to form.

 

[aramis erak]

The player/character made no claim to appropriate training, so I am not sure how it is not accurate.



Well, this is why I put it the way I did. They said, 'I can figure it out," stating it as a truth. That was technically an inappropriate assertion, as the player usually cannot unilaterally assert success on a specific task resolution. "I should be able to figure it out," would have been better. But still, this is about task resolution.

The player did not, as I read it, assert some as yet unknown past narrative that applied to the situation, so the question of it being the GM's place to prohibit that or not doesn't enter into it.

It is stated as a truth not previously defined. The sheet doesn't say Not Trained, nor does it say Trained.
As clarified by Michael...

But what if your character sheet doesn't specify how trained you are?

And my answer to this is, in games I consider good, "what's the unskilled penalty?"

 

[Umbran]

Wait .... are you saying that all the time I spent playing Oregon Trail was WASTED???

Easy way to check - go see if you catch dysentery for real this time.

 

[Umbran]

It is stated as a truth not previously defined. The sheet doesn't say Not Trained, nor does it say Trained.

Game rules are not typically ambiguous about skill training. Either you have it or you don't. If you have it, it is on the sheet.

If your game is specifically vague about it, and doesn't give the player a mechanic for such a declaration (like, say, Fate, which has rules for announcing new Aspects or Stunts in play), then you probably should have figured this out before play began.

Thus, I don't see this as a deep issue. If you didn't work out how to decide such things in Session Zero, do it now, and move forward.

 

[MGibster]

Why? And I am not be fecetious. It is kind of an important question.

I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of what everyone did in the past. I know people on the Oregon Trail carried their own supplies to make repairs to their wagons if necessary. It stands to reason that a farmer or someone else who makes frequent use of a wagon is going to have the means to make repairs when necessary. Because repairs will be necessary at some point and you can't sit around all day being unproductive.

Do we assume a lot about what the PCs are doing and how they are doing it, because the PC is an experienced explorer/traveler/adventurer and the player isn't, or do we put that onus on the player to actually plan and prepare as if they were going on an expedition?

We assume a lot. Or at least I assume a lot. I don't like fiddly details because it's not a lot of fun for me to play got'cha with the players. "Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't write down that you had lubrication for the bearings on your wagon. Looks like it seized up and there's nothing you can do about it." Is that fun for anyone?

 

[Reynard]

I don't have an exhaustive knowledge of what everyone did in the past. I know people on the Oregon Trail carried their own supplies to make repairs to their wagons if necessary. It stands to reason that a farmer or someone else who makes frequent use of a wagon is going to have the means to make repairs when necessary. Because repairs will be necessary at some point and you can't sit around all day being unproductive.

We assume a lot. Or at least I assume a lot. I don't like fiddly details because it's not a lot of fun for me to play got'cha with the players. "Oh, I'm sorry, you didn't write down that you had lubrication for the bearings on your wagon. Looks like it seized up and there's nothing you can do about it." Is that fun for anyone?

I assume it is fun for someone. But it is a continuum. There is a level where the players need to write down what they bring but "wagon repair kits - 10" would be sufficient. The same way we ask them to write down rations, but don't go into details about the amount of beans versus dried fish.

Sometimes, part of the challenge is being prepared, and part of the fun is finding out you weren't.

I have never been able to run or play an ACTUAL expedition in D&D and I would really like to one day.

 

[aramis erak]

Game rules are not typically ambiguous about skill training. Either you have it or you don't. If you have it, it is on the sheet.

If your game is specifically vague about it, and doesn't give the player a mechanic for such a declaration (like, say, Fate, which has rules for announcing new Aspects or Stunts in play), then you probably should have figured this out before play began.

Thus, I don't see this as a deep issue. If you didn't work out how to decide such things in Session Zero, do it now, and move forward.

It's practically fundamental to the design space.

Where does the designer set that expectation?
Many in the OSR designer clade claim that any definition prior to needing it is bad design, and so they claim to write the minimum needed. One game, the designer explicitly says that if you don't remember it at the table, you don't need to know it. (in Neoclassical Greek Revival.) Taken to the extreme, the axiom "rulings, not rules" is a rejection of define-before-need both on its face, and as a resulting playstyle.

If nothing else, a designer should know their position on it and elicidate said in rules. If I see OSR on it, it's reasonable to expect no such definition of how to handle "not net defined" elements, and a flat rejection of the "No skill on sheet, no skill in character" many GMs operate with.