Extensive Character Sheets Are GM Oppression

[Li Shenron]

But the player makes the decisions.

Which game do you have in mind?

First of all, in a typical RPG the premise is that the player makes the decisions (i.e. choose their actions) and the DM determines the outcome. If my players started pretending to determine the outcome, then I would start pretending to choose their actions.

Then when you talk about character sheet I think you actually means the game rules, whether these rules are mentioned/recalled on the sheet is less relevant than having rules in the first place which could be more or less restrictive. There are simply some RPGs with more detailed rules about what PCs can/cannot do and others which are more open-ended. If a player doesn't like playing the first, they can always try to play the second.

 

[Blue]

For me, it's gone way beyond the literary high fantasy to the (to me, extremely unpalatable) Medieval Super Heroes level.

But only in some aspects, which is my point. There's some things that are at those high levels, and others are mired in the limits of what can be done in the real world.

Only when the GM is inconsistent or beyond one or more players' tolerance for supers in their fantasy. And that later tends to show pretty soon in my experience.

Hard disagree. There are parts of the rules that propagate real world realism, like how far you can jump, and ones that propagate a much higher power level, like how far you can fall and just keep fighting.

A GM can definitely add to the inconsistency, but in D&D which is the example I was using inconsistency is enshrined in the rules - a DM following RAW can not help but be inconsistent.

I've lost players from both ends of the tolerance for extreme stunts... and I'd just tell the player, "Are you sure you want to try that?" and if they say yes, just hit them with the falling damage, fpor swimming up a waterfall without magic of a swim speed greater than gravity's 450'/round....

Sounds like there was a mismatch in expectations between the player and the DM - which is just about always the DM's fault as it's under their control and should have been explained to the players what type of game they are running.

 

[GMMichael]

For the oldest of Old School, this is mostly irrelevant, due to the lack of the concept of being trained in a skill at all.

So I suspect that OG character sheets had more white space (than D&D 5) and that the players were more willing to try things that were not on or suggested by those sheets.

. . . are treated like high fantasy, others like being able to leap a 30' chasm or do other fantastical on-genre yet non-magical actions.

"Nobody makes their first jump."

Which game do you have in mind?

Harder to make a case for GM oppression if I'm referring to only one game.

Then when you talk about character sheet I think you actually means the game rules, whether these rules are mentioned/recalled on the sheet is less relevant than having rules in the first place which could be more or less restrictive.

Truth, but I hope there aren't a lot of games out there that have a bunch of restrictions that only the GM knows about.

PC: Hey, look! A waterfall!

GM: No.

PC: I didn't... anyway. I want to swim up it!

GM: No.

PC: Don't I at least get to...

GM: No.

PC: But on my char...

GM: No.

 

[Reynard]

Players and the GM really need to be on the same page regarding the genre of the game being played. Is this a genre where people can swim up waterfalls? The answer does not require extra rules, but it does inform what things can be attempted.

 

[Aldarc]

Creativity or detailed rules system?

Some must think that the people who like detailed rules-heavy systems have absolutely no imagination, creativity, or organic thought. But what is that common insulting accusation again? That y'all would clearly prefer playing a boardgame?

 

[Pedantic]

Some must think that the people who like detailed rules-heavy systems have absolutely no imagination, creativity, or organic thought. But what is that common insulting accusation again? That y'all would clearly prefer playing a boardgame?

It's moved on! I usually get told I should play a videogame these days.

 

[Reynard]

It's moved on! I usually get told I should play a videogame these days.

I have always wanted to run a hybrid campaign that incorporate complex miniatures games, board games and even video games into the larger story of the RPG campaign (as was appropriate for whatever was happening).

 

[Kichwas]

PC: I look at the broken wain. Fixing it should be easy. It clearly just needs to have some parts nailed back in place, reset this brace, and a support put here.

GM: Um, are you a wizard or a wainwright?

PC: Wizard. But my Mental score is 15. I can figure things out.

So, what about these sheets that are covered, top to bottom, with references to the rule book? Where's the PC freedom? "I know how to fix wains." Okay, let me see your character sheet. Hmm. Your Crafting is zero, it says here. Sorry, not sorry. "But my Int is 15!" Okay, but your Background, Page, doesn't mention anything about wains. Being a wainwright takes Strength, and yours is 10 (wow, that's low!).

So I do play one of those detailed games.

Player: I try to fix the wagon wheel.
GM: make a crafting check.
Player: My PC doesn't have that skill trained, but it says I have +3. Rolls dice.
GM: Ok, after a bit of sweat and toil you figure it out.
Player: Now I want to carve a rune into it so it never breaks again and the wagon can hold a bigger load.
GM: That's a trained only task. You can do normal repairs and such untrained, but not special things.

Some things can be done untrained at one 'bonus' to your roll, being trained boosts your bonus, and unlocks tasks that requires training. The types of things that tend to fall into training are called out in the books because the system I use (Pathfinder 2E) has a lot of detail. Anything else is a judgment call of "Well, it's more like one of these trained things so it will require training" or "that's kind of a thing most people could figure out with some effort but trained people can do better". With the usual guidance being to have things fall into the 'figure it out' camp unless they're clearly 'just like' something in the trained only list.

For example, the Thievery skill:
Player: I steal the pie off the counter. GM: Sure, a trained thief would do this better, but any fool can try.
Player: I pick the safe. It says pick a lock is trained, this is a safe not a lock. GM: Lol... no. That's just playing with semantics. Pick a lock means picking locks - be they on doors, bikes, or even safes.

 

[aramis erak]

But only in some aspects, which is my point. There's some things that are at those high levels, and others are mired in the limits of what can be done in the real world.


Hard disagree. There are parts of the rules that propagate real world realism, like how far you can jump, and ones that propagate a much higher power level, like how far you can fall and just keep fighting.

The jump rules are rather generous... olympic level, even.

 

[Blue]

The jump rules are rather generous... olympic level, even.

Thanks for this perfect example that they are levels achievable in the real world, even if it's high functioning real world. As contrast to all of the things heroes can do that are above those levels.