D&D General Playstyle vs Mechanics

[Lanefan]

Yeah, I’m not sure. I mean, you’ve changed things a bit to read as metacurrency, but I’m sure if we examine that a bit, it would kind of fall apart. There are gray areas that aren’t so easily classified and so on.

I think the idea of a rule or game mechanic being representative of something in the game world is key here, and how that rule represents the thing.

We could give the Rogue class a “Moment of Intuition” ability that allows the player to spend a point to automatically dodge an attack. Some would view that as a metacurrency… but why? It’s representative of the Rogue’s intuitive ability to detect and avoid danger. Plenty of other elements represent these things… Perception, Armor Class, Uncanny Dodge, Danger Sense… and so on.

The player may say “I’m gonna use my Moment of Intuition here to avoid that attack” but the character isn’t doing that… they are simply detecting and avoiding an attack.

And this would be fine, more or less, if the player had to declare the ability's use before the attack was rolled. It's intuition "I sense an attack coming, Ima gonna dodge it" is fine, but I'd rather there still be the possibility that the attack would have missed anyway.

Most of the metacurrency elements seen in games seem to be geared around undoing or denying rolls already made, however, which to me is just wrong.

Why? Your character certainly knows he needs to make strong arguments or otherwise exert influence to get what he wants, and he knows that the finance minister, already having the duke’s trust, won’t have to work as hard to convince the duke.

These are known things and the mechanics represent them.

Your character knows strong arguments are needed and it's on you-the-player to - as best you can - present those arguments in real time, just as it's on the DM to respond in real time and in-character as the person who is (maybe) being persuaded.

The moment mechanics rear their ugly heads, players (and DMs) start skipping or downplaying the real-time speaking part in favour of just deferring to those mechanics. This can't happen if those mechanics don't exist.

 

[Lanefan]

There is in fact a world of middle ground, your inability and/or unwillingness to see it notwithstanding. I find that the rules don't spoil the moment/s at all in social situations; in fact, the rules enable moments.

Also, what's with this "metagame of rules" stuff? How can the rules be anything but game?

Depends on what one is looking for when playing.

If you're looking for total immersion (the best time and place for which is during the talky bits when interacting with NPCs and-or the other PCs) then any involvement of game mechanics is going to fight against that, and hard.

Note: here I'm defining meta as being anything other than total immersion; it's the wrong term for the job but I ain't got a better one right now.

 

[prabe]

Depends on what one is looking for when playing.

If you're looking for total immersion (the best time and place for which is during the talky bits when interacting with NPCs and-or the other PCs) then any involvement of game mechanics is going to fight against that, and hard.

Note: here I'm defining meta as being anything other than total immersion; it's the wrong term for the job but I ain't got a better one right now.

I don't believe "total immersion" exists, so I'm obviously not looking for it. What I believe in--what I've seen--is something like a flow state, which can involve processes just fine: I've lost time to co-op board games at least as much as to TRPGs, and the board games aren't even making a pretense at immersion or even really narrative.

 

[soviet]

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.

I reject the idea that we can play out social situation for real, or even anything close to that.

I'm sure many of us here have been involved in lots of online discussions. How often is it that someone is convinced of something and changes their mind? It's not common. The reason is that we are strangers to each other and there are no social pressures like risk of embarassment, risk of looking obstructive, risk of escalation, etc. There are no stakes. The same is true in the game.

In real life, where those factors do exist, in meetings at work, in conversations with family, and in arguments with strangers, we all the time see people go along with things they fundamentally disagree with because of social pressure, compromise on things for the sake of a quiet life, or back down for fear of wider consequences. There are real stakes.

Now, I enjoy playing out these conversations. I think it's a fun part of play. And how the player approaches that conversation should absolutely influence the outcome in the form of bonuses to the dice roll, or even automatic successes (or automatic failures, potentially, if a very wrong approach is taken). But it's not because 'wow, the player really did convince me'. It's because the player made an effort and added something extra to the game by contributing colourful dialogue, good acting, a clever approach, or whatever else. They were plausible.

I don't think there's any real reason that this approach can't be applied to other things like combat. Combat doesn't have to be a mechanical process of initiative and to-hit rolls. Or not exclusively so. Imagine a game where instead of all that, the GM said 'OK, the orc lunges at you with a wild swing of his greatsword'. And the player responded by describing how they tried to sidestep the blow and knock the orc off balance, or block it with their gauntleted hand and go for the disarm, or go under it and stab at the orc's throat, or whatever else. And maybe some of those things result in an automatic success, or an automatic defeat, or a bonus, or a penalty. For the round or for the fight or whatever.

Yes, we (most of us) don't know a lot about real melee combat. We're describing things that seem plausible or cool and hoping that the GM or other players agree. Similarly, I don't know much about persuading angels to sacrifice themselves, intimidating robbers into backing down, or deceiving guards into letting me past. I'm describing approaches or speaking words of improvised dialogue that seem plausible or cool and hoping the GM or other players agree. The social interactions we pretend to have are no more real than the fights.

 

[Alerad]

The key is finding the right balance for the group. Some tables lean heavily into the immersive storytelling aspect, while others embrace the meta-game elements as part of the fun. Neither approach is inherently wrong, it’s all about what makes the experience enjoyable for the players.

For example, mechanics can enhance immersion if they feel intuitive and reinforce the in-world logic. Years ago I ran a 5e game where the party had to traverse a desert. I changed the rest and water/food supplies mechanics to a more severe/gritty option. The party was looking for water and discussing how/where to rest ro recover their spells. This might seem meta-gamey at first but they were doing the exact same thing people stranded in the desert for 2 weeks would do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My point is that even if RP makes no difference whatsoever to the outcome of the end result, you can still hypothetically RP. It's just meaningless.

This seems much more true to me of freeform RP that doesn’t much interact with the game rules and processes, that’s my point.

And this would be fine, more or less, if the player had to declare the ability's use before the attack was rolled. It's intuition "I sense an attack coming, Ima gonna dodge it" is fine, but I'd rather there still be the possibility that the attack would have missed anyway.

Most of the metacurrency elements seen in games seem to be geared around undoing or denying rolls already made, however, which to me is just wrong.

I don’t know why the sequence matters. That would seem to be placing importance on the”meta” as you describe it.

Your character knows strong arguments are needed and it's on you-the-player to - as best you can - present those arguments in real time, just as it's on the DM to respond in real time and in-character as the person who is (maybe) being persuaded.

The moment mechanics rear their ugly heads, players (and DMs) start skipping or downplaying the real-time speaking part in favour of just deferring to those mechanics. This can't happen if those mechanics don't exist.

So you state this as if you’ve seen it happen rather than just as a concern of yours. What game are you talking about? What happened?

I ask because that’s rarely been my experience. Players almost always will narrate their declared action in some way.

 

[Lanefan]

I don’t know why the sequence matters. That would seem to be placing importance on the”meta” as you describe it.

Quite the opposite: it's placing importance on the fiction and how the mechanics reflect it in sequential time.

Person with Intuitive Dodge (our new hypothetical ability for the day) senses an attack coming and decides this would be a good time to use that ability. The attack then happens, and regardless of the roll (which is still made to allow for the possibility of fumbles etc.) it auto-misses. This all flows sequentially in time both in the fiction and at the table, and the mechanics directly match the fiction. Good.

Contrast this with our Intuitive Dodge person getting hit by an attack and only then deciding that would have been a good time to have used Intuitive Dodge; the ability is invoked, and a hit turns to a miss. This doesn't flow sequentially in time at the table, as time gets reversed such that what was a successful attack becomes a miss; nor does it flow sequentially in the fiction as the fiction is being retroactively changed. Bad.

So you state this as if you’ve seen it happen rather than just as a concern of yours. What game are you talking about? What happened?

I ask because that’s rarely been my experience. Players almost always will narrate their declared action in some way.

First off, I'm not talking about "declaring actions" as such, I'm talking about (what should be freeform) roleplay leading either to a resolution or a stalemate, depending on how that roleplay turns out.

Put another way, ideally the player never says "I'm trying to persuade the Duke" before or during the process of doing so, unless it's an in-character whispered aside to someone (be it PC or NPC) not sure what's going on. Instead, the player just launches into whatever persuasive arguments come to mind and things develop organically from there as the DM responds in-character as the Duke (and-or any other NPCs who might be involved).

 

[Lanefan]

So you state this as if you’ve seen it happen rather than just as a concern of yours. What game are you talking about? What happened?

I ask because that’s rarely been my experience. Players almost always will narrate their declared action in some way.

Broke this bit out as it's a separate issue...

If there's mechanics in place to resolve social scenes then declaring "I try to persuade the Duke to finance our mission" is, technically, all that's required to invoke those mechanics. Yes the DM can ask what you're saying and try to insist on more detail, but all the mechanics demand is that basic action declaration.

And I've known (and played with) players* whose approach, because it was allowed by the rules, would default to the basic action declaration and nothing more; and when asked for more detail by the DM would simply repeat the declaration in full knowledge that it was all the game required. Taking away that option by removing those mechanics forces those players to at least try to roleplay the scene.

* - and one DM, who despite running a supposedly-roleplaying game had no patience or tolerance for roleplay or anything else that didn't involve high-action combat; perhaps not surprisingly, that campaign didn't last very long.

 

[soviet]

Quite the opposite: it's placing importance on the fiction and how the mechanics reflect it in sequential time.

Person with Intuitive Dodge (our new hypothetical ability for the day) senses an attack coming and decides this would be a good time to use that ability. The attack then happens, and regardless of the roll (which is still made to allow for the possibility of fumbles etc.) it auto-misses. This all flows sequentially in time both in the fiction and at the table, and the mechanics directly match the fiction. Good.

Contrast this with our Intuitive Dodge person getting hit by an attack and only then deciding that would have been a good time to have used Intuitive Dodge; the ability is invoked, and a hit turns to a miss. This doesn't flow sequentially in time at the table, as time gets reversed such that what was a successful attack becomes a miss; nor does it flow sequentially in the fiction as the fiction is being retroactively changed. Bad.

You're assuming here that the dice roll represents the final part of resolving the fiction (sometimes known as 'Fortune at the End'). I'm not sure that's a safe assumption. Certainly in 2014 5e there are various things that can still affect the outcome after the dice roll has taken place, for example the Lucky feat.

The 2014 Lucky feat represents a kind of Fortune in the Middle approach, which essentially has the result of the dice roll acting as a pending outcome that can still potentially be intercepted or changed. The player/character can think 'This enemy attack or spell looks like it's going to miss me or be easy to resist... I'll leave it [and not use the Lucky feat]' or 'This enemy attack or spell is coming straight at me... Yikes, I'll dive out the way! [uses the Lucky feat]'.

I understand why people might not like such mechanics, but they don't have to be interpreted in a way that 'retroactively changes the fiction'.

EDIT: The example that just sprang to mind is Gothmog in Return of the King, when he sees the stone thrower fire at him, sizes it up on the approach to see where it will land, and steps out of the way at the last second.

 

[soviet]

Broke this bit out as it's a separate issue...

If there's mechanics in place to resolve social scenes then declaring "I try to persuade the Duke to finance our mission" is, technically, all that's required to invoke those mechanics. Yes the DM can ask what you're saying and try to insist on more detail, but all the mechanics demand is that basic action declaration.

And I've known (and played with) players* whose approach, because it was allowed by the rules, would default to the basic action declaration and nothing more; and when asked for more detail by the DM would simply repeat the declaration in full knowledge that it was all the game required. Taking away that option by removing those mechanics forces those players to at least try to roleplay the scene.

* - and one DM, who despite running a supposedly-roleplaying game had no patience or tolerance for roleplay or anything else that didn't involve high-action combat; perhaps not surprisingly, that campaign didn't last very long.

The obvious answer here does seem to be 'don't play bad games with bad players'.