D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Thomas Shey]

Absolutely. I've played and run many games like that. As a GM, I expect players to play these traits out and earn the benefits they received. As a player, I play these traits out and earn the benefits I receive.

Though I do think there's some justification for at least limited things you didn't actively buy into requiring action. As I referenced upthread, outside of action-horror, one of the basic premises of a lot of horror games is that the character doesn't always get to say when he's frightened or control his reaction to that. By agreeing to play in such a game, you have passively agreed the mechanics will have some sway here. Occasionally there's elements of that in a game that isn't laser-focused on horror, but where its a significant element. Eclipse Phase has a system where your mental integrity can be "damaged" just like your physical, and mechanics to support that (partly because there are horror elements to the game, partly because the mental/physical split is particularly important in that setting since you can change bodies like we change cars). It also has traits you can acquire that make it easier to resist some of these effects if you want to do it, its just not handled entirely by nothing but player choice.

But I don't think such things are automatically superior to the decisions-off-the-mechanics approach; I just think they serve some sound purposes.

 

[zakael19]

Someone (sorry, forgot who) posted a link to the duel of wits sheet to explain the process a bit. I see the same thing that I saw in 4e's skill challenges, that what I actually say doesn't really matter. You have different options you can use but they are still just options that are resolved with the roll of the dice.

Nothing you say in a TTRPG matters until or unless the table or the relevant authority agrees it does. In a 4e skill challenge, what you say matters because it affects the fiction and then the relevant skill being rolled - the outcome between "threatening a street ganger to get info about the cult leader" vs "bribing a street ganger to get info about the cult leader" vs "shadowing the street ganger to his meeting with the cult leader" is fundamentally different fiction, scenes on success/fail, and skills being used. Plus you know, the GM can always deploy a +/-2 in response to fictional statements that make a situation better or worse, or say "oh, I'm going to use my Hard DC here because your approach is pretty tricky!"

When you rely just on "words" we're circling right back to the question of how players can comprehend the rule-state and take consistent knowable action to achieve their ends. IN a 4e skill challenge, I know what my skills are & what the DCs for a Standard check are, what the outcome of a Win on the challenge is, and where the party is trying to go. When you're adjudicating off "what I say is all that matters" then the player is hoping to fumble along to get to what the DM is looking for. Maybe if you've been all playing together for ages that gets consistent, but otherwise it's the black box @EzekielRaiden keeps talking about.

 

[Faolyn]

My understanding of 5e D&D is that it is permissible for the GM to call for a roll to see if a PC notices something (perception-type checks) or knows/remembers something (knowledge-type checks).

I also thought that, if the GM (say) has a sphinx ask a riddle, a player isn't entitled to just decide that their PC knows the answer.

A perception check or knowledge/history check is not an emotional state check.

 

[Lanefan]

OK, so take the idea of arguing so that PC 2 mends PC 1's armor. PC 2 wants to go to Dangerous Place; PC 1 doesn't want her to go until she mends his armor.

What happens if Player/PC 1 roleplays an argument that actually convinces Player/PC 2, but rolls really badly?

Depends on whether Player/PC 2 is allowed to voluntarily concede the duel of wits before (or even after) the roll is made.

 

[Thomas Shey]

In a D&D game (and just about every other RPG out there), you don't use social skills on PCs. You can roll and say "your character finds their argument very persuasive," (or very lackluster, or whatever) but you can't say "your PC is convinced." Unless there's magic involved, which means that it isn't a social skill but a magical attack.

I think the "just about every other RPG out there" is an overstatement; your second half is probably right, but in a number of games social skills don't automatically convince or compel an NPC either; they either function in an advisory role, or they impose a Condition that will nudge a character (PC or NPC) in a direction, but not force them.

 

[Thomas Shey]

A perception check or knowledge/history check is not an emotional state check.

It does kind of break a hard-line between physical and mental mechanics if someone is trying to draw one there, however.

 

[zakael19]

Well. That page just sucks all the fun out of roleplaying.


In a D&D game (and just about every other RPG out there), you don't use social skills on PCs. You can roll and say "your character finds their argument very persuasive," (or very lackluster, or whatever) but you can't say "your PC is convinced." Unless there's magic involved, which means that it isn't a social skill but a magical attack.

No, you think it removes the fun because it's not free-form. People who may enjoy engaging with a game and play while also weaving fictional statements that match their Wits skills, hoping they anticipate their opponent's argument, and come away with a Win without taking to many hits love it.

Your second point is just reinforcing my post a little up thread:

Somewhere in here we have the simple clash between "games where the character is not merely an extension of you, but modeled separately with the unexpected/unwanted" and "games where I desire to inhabit a character possibly with some wish fulfillment along the way" and then rules that facilitate one or the other desire better.

Goshdarnit I'm engaging on the Duel of Wits stuff again.

(incidentally, @pemerton I took like 10 minutes to read that linked Duel of Wits sheet and some reddit threads and the flow of task resolution to try and grasp it a little better and man while I'm not sure Burning Wheel is for me it's a fascinating attempt to really mechanize narrative fiction/storytelling. I think I appreciate some of the stuff it's doing a lot better now, time to go re-read Mouse Guard)

 

[Micah Sweet]

Though I do think there's some justification for at least limited things you didn't actively buy into requiring action. As I referenced upthread, outside of action-horror, one of the basic premises of a lot of horror games is that the character doesn't always get to say when he's frightened or control his reaction to that. By agreeing to play in such a game, you have passively agreed the mechanics will have some sway here. Occasionally there's elements of that in a game that isn't laser-focused on horror, but where its a significant element. Eclipse Phase has a system where your mental integrity can be "damaged" just like your physical, and mechanics to support that (partly because there are horror elements to the game, partly because the mental/physical split is particularly important in that setting since you can change bodies like we change cars). It also has traits you can acquire that make it easier to resist some of these effects if you want to do it, its just not handled entirely by nothing but player choice.

But I don't think such things are automatically superior to the decisions-off-the-mechanics approach; I just think they serve some sound purposes.

Ravenloft had rules like this. I was and am fine with that, but I would also want to explicitly discuss the use of such rules and what they do to your PC and their agency prior to starting the game. Just having it be part of the general design philosophy wouldn't be enough for me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, you think it removes the fun because it's not free-form. People who may enjoy engaging with a game and play while also weaving fictional statements that match their Wits skills, hoping they anticipate their opponent's argument, and come away with a Win without taking to many hits love it.

No, for them it absolutely would remove the fun from the experience. Perhaps it wouldn't for you. We're all different.

 

[Lanefan]

It was in the capacity of GM, in a round-robin GMed game, that Alicia's player called for the Steel test.

I think this is where you're in what is very foreign territory for most of us: the idea of two players GMing each other (or sharing the GM role) at the same time in the same fiction.

It's also very confusing; as when you say "Alicia's player called for the Steel test" what you really mean is "The (other) GM called for the Steel test".