D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[mamba]

And see, we don't even know this. Suppose my player gives a powerful portrayal of a character who wants to persuade an angel to allow herself to be killed - does this mean that that same player would actually be good at persuading an actual person to sacrifice themselves for some greater value? I think that's a pretty open question.

what I meant is that the outcome is not based on the char sheet but on the player's actual skill / talent, not that the player could achieve that outcome (or something similar to it) in real life

 

[prabe]

I'm not sure if this is a personal insult or not? Could you explain what you disagree with about my post?

There is a broad range of possibilities between "using the mechanical rules" (presumably not thinking in-character at all) and "role playing" (presumably not thinking about the rules/mechanics at all); I'd go further and say those things are neither really ends of a range nor mutually exclusive, nor even zero-sum.

 

[prabe]

Because, and @Oofta already hit this upthread, if you're thinking as a player using rules rather than as your character in the situation you've veered into the metagame.

Thus, if I'm in-character thinking up ways of how best to persuade the Duke to finance our risky venture into the wilds, that's "game". But if I'm instead (or even side-along) thinking something like "I need to score six influence points on this guy before his finance minister scores three against me", that's meta all the way and is going to (almost for sure negatively) affect how I inhabit and roleplay my character.

Oh, that false dichotomy again. There's a wide range between your two poles, it's not either-or, they're not mutually exclusive; to the extent the rules reflect how the world works, using them is in fact applying your characters abilites, skills and knowledge, and working inside them to accomplish things.

 

[prabe]

I've got a few questions for all the folks saying that they would allow players to sub personal social skills in place of character's missing social skills.

• Would you allow a player to buy or commission a wagon jack
  • Use it to ignore a high DC lock?
• Toss a door latch board thing off the locked side of a door using an under or over door tool?
• Ask an innocuous question like "does this door open in so it would be easier to bash in, or does it open out so it would have the door frame helping to stop it from being bashed in?" Yes great! assume you said it opens out...
  • Cool I pop the hinges & step back
• etc

Edit: fixed the last two links

I would absolutely allow a PC (in an appropriate game/situation) to do any of those things, or perhaps their magical equivalent/s, though I'm pretty sure I've been saying I want the players to use game mechanics instead of their own personal charm.

 

[pemerton]

what I meant is that the outcome is not based on the char sheet but on the player's actual skill / talent, not that the player could achieve that outcome (or something similar to it) in real life

OK. I don't think that's a bad thing, then, at least in the following sense: a player's actual skill/talent determines, in part, how well they do in D&D combat (there are more or less clever things someone can do); how well they choose which spells to memorise and to cast; etc.

How much that sort of skill matters, how different the skill is that helps you in combat vs (say) social or infiltration, etc - that becomes a detailed question of game design. Different RPGs will go different ways.

 

[mamba]

OK. I don't think that's a bad thing, then, at least in the following sense: a player's actual skill/talent determines, in part, how well they do in D&D combat (there are more or less clever things someone can do); how well they choose which spells to memorise and to cast; etc.

yes, there is some part of it you cannot really avoid, like the combat strategy part you mentioned, but if it all comes down to player skill, why even have stats like Intelligence and Charisma and skills based on them...

 

[bloodtide]

But how do you roleplay problem solving, without any system/dice assistance?

Lets say I introduce a puzzle that requires knowing how to manipulate an advanced mathematics formula (I wouldn't, for various reasons but let's say I do). The player of the "smart" character in the group (the character has the requisite knowledge skills) has an English background and avoids advanced math like the plague, how is he going to roleplay solving it?

Your example is not exactly general "problem solving" when your talking about doing a task like a math puzzle. If you would do this in a game, then sure your just going to do a "roll a check DC 10" type thing.

Though if I was doing a problem to solve, I would make it a problem that the player(s) had to solve for real. I don't use math ones often, I like more logic puzzles.

What about the shy player who has no "real life" charisma or social acumen wanting to play the dashing and socially gifted bard?

I explain to this player that they can't just casually with no effort role play "act" a character. If they want to role play "act" like something they are not, it will take practice and a lot of effort.

Though, a player is free to play a character however they wish on a whim; and when something comes up in the game that a socially gifted bard might do, they can make the mechanical rule roll to 'role play' "playing the game type". They can then be happy they 'role played' a socially gifted bard, by making the roll.

Does that player have any less right to want to (and be able to) play that character than the player who can't even bench the bar without any weights on it gets to play the STR 20 barbarian who can kick down obstacles with ease?

There is a huge difference between Role Playing "acting" and Role Playing "playing an RPG".

If your fine as counting "I rolled a d20 a couple times" as "role playing a character" , then you can do that in the game and it's all good.

Again, as above, to Role Play "acting" takes practice and effort

By extension then, you wouldn't let someone who can't pick a lock or scale a wall play a rogue?

Someone who can't properly swing a longsword play a fighter?

And, of course, if the player can't properly perform the gesture for magic missile - wizard is right out!

When your talking about a simple direct task, and like in your examples physical acts, your talking about very small amounts of time. A character does the action for seconds, or maybe a whole minute. But the player then is still 'playing the character' for all the hours of the gameplay.

And this is the big point. When a mechanical event comes up you can 'play' your character as charismatic for that short time as you roll the dice. But for the whole rest of the gameplay: the hours and hours of gameplay, the player is on their own to role play 'act' as whatever they want their character to be. And this is the bulk of the game time. This is where a player would really 'role play acting', not the combined couple minutes of mechanical rolls.

 

[pemerton]

yes, there is some part of it you cannot really avoid, like the combat strategy part you mentioned, but if it all comes down to player skill, why even have stats like Intelligence and Charisma and skills based on them...

Well, in 4e D&D those stats affect various skill checks, defences and the like - but if a player can't think of a sensible move to make in a skill challenge, than having a high Arcana or Diplomacy or whatever skill won't help.

Similarly, no matter how high a PC's DEX, if the player can't make sensible decisions about where to move their PC on a battle map, then they will find their PC not being able to get to the right place at the right time!

 

[Lanefan]

By extension then, you wouldn't let someone who can't pick a lock or scale a wall play a rogue?

Someone who can't properly swing a longsword play a fighter?

And, of course, if the player can't properly perform the gesture for magic missile - wizard is right out!

Those things are all rules-abstracted precisely because we don't or can't do them at the table. (well, maybe not the missile gesture - that could be done at the table and I'm sure there's players or groups out there somewhere that do it this way)

We can't explore and map cavern systems at the table either,

We can, however, all talk* and interact socially. It's by nature a social game/pastime; you've no choice but interact with the DM, and it's probably a good idea to interact with the other players.

* - or write, or type, for those who are completely mute.

 

[Lanefan]

Social interaction is not being done "for real", though. No one is actually persuading anyone of anything. To take an extreme example, so as to clearly illustrate the point: the 3E module Bastion of Broken Souls includes, as part of its set-up, an angel who is a "living key" to a gate - that is, the gate can only be opened by killing the angel. Now the module itself has some good ideas but terrible follow through, and in this particular case it tells the GM that the only way to open the gate is for the PCs to kill the angel in combat. But when I adapted the module into a Rolemaster campaign, I ignored the bad advice. And one of the PCs in my game reasoned with the angel, explained to her what was at stake and why it was essential to open the gate, and as a result the angel willingly permitted the PC to kill her.

But this doesn't mean that the player actually persuaded anyone to let him take her life! It's all just pretend.

Ideally, the notion of it all being pretend gets shoved way to the back-burner in the moments when the player in-character is trying to persuade the angel and you in-character as the angel are responding as said angel would. The words and thoughts are done as if they're real - some high thespian drama there! - even if any resulting physical action is then abstracted.

By this measure, D&D combat is metagame - when I resolve a fight in AD&D I'm not thinking about parrying and thrusting and dodging and maiming and the like; I'm thinking about how I need to score N more hit points of damage before my own hit points get ablated.

On this, we agree. Most rules abstractions lead straight to the metagame, which is IMO an inevitable concession to the fact we can't do some of this for real. But those relatively few things we can do for real IMO we should, and that includes all the talky bits.

In a LARP, a slightly higher percentage of things can be done for real - relative positioning, movement, body language and gestures as well as words, and so forth - which means a slightly-lowered need for abstraction. Some SCA LARPers I once knew even did their combats for mostly-real (to the yield instead of to the death, natch!) in cases where they were fighting each other.