A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

The player should be able to say THIS is how I want to address this challenge. The GM should be able to then make that idea as logical as any solution can be.

And since it’s all made up, he can do that.

The more often you unilaterally say no to them, the less true this is, and the more the players are just the protagonists in the GM’s story.

In my games the players can always say how they want to address a challenge. They can't say how that pans out, and they can't invent adventure details. But they can do whatever they want within the setting.

I definitely don't see myself creating a story for the players. And I don't see the players creating one either. You aren't wrong if that is how you see the game and how you play it, but it just isn't how I tend to think of running an adventure.

I understand that for you, enjoyment of play comes from contributing creatively to the setting. That is fine. I don't object to that. I even said I had fun doing it the hill folk way (which fit my style because it still felt very much like I was there to me but it also captured the intimate drama that you used to see in tv miniseries like I, Claudius). But for me, in a typical campaign, I rather enjoy the traditional line between players and GM (and I don't see it as being as limiting as you seem to find it).

 

[Lanefan]

Invoking GM fiat as the trump card of "system doesn't matter" only serves to obfuscate the argument,

Until and unless you arrive at a design where GM fiat by and large is the system, or underpins a great swath of it; and while I agree its not a 'system doesn't matter' trump card it is another type of system that's halfway common out there and thus can't really be ignored.

 

[Aldarc]

Until and unless you arrive at a design where GM fiat by and large is the system, or underpins a great swath of it; and while I agree its not a 'system doesn't matter' trump card it is another type of system that's halfway common out there and thus can't really be ignored.

Indeed, that system exists: it's called "Mother, May I?"

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No it isn't. You can have your characters ROLE PLAY a romance. Since no rule of D&D whatsoever will be used in that exercise, it is fair to say that it is not really 'playing D&D' per se. I mean, you can complicate things by presuming that all this happens in the backdrop of some other D&D action, but its character partakes of D&D as a game in no way whatsoever.

This is why @chaochou said you could 'play it with Trivial Pursuit' because both games give you equal support, in every respect, for doing so (well, at least D&D has the concept of a 'character' as a game entity, so I'll grant it is slightly ahead here, but not much).

The test of this is that the exact same 'romantic narrative' would arise in ANY other RPG (that isn't about romance), regardless of rules, as long as it allocated narrative authority in the same way (or the participants did so anyway). You could do exactly the same by simply sitting at the table making a story with no rules at all (again assuming consistent use of narrative authority).

So what? Role playing is kinda integral part of playing a roleplaying game! And that it in many situations doesn't matter terribly much which system you're using, underlines my point that rules are not terribly important.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Where did this idea of combat and exploration being the only things worth mechanizing come about? Why must social interaction be entirely freeform?

It comes mainly from people being able to speak with each other in my living room just fine, but actually physically fighting a dragon there is much harder to arrange!

If that isn't what the game is about - if much more time is being spent on combat or exploration than social situations, I guess it's an acceptable loss. But that requires the recognition that your game isn't about that thing. Yes, the negative space in the D&D rules design does permit the freeform roleplaying of exploring relationships (going back to the current discussion topic), but compare that to Monsterhearts, where the entire game is about relationships, and has mechanical support to match. A much weightier and robust experience can be gained from the latter.

Only if you think that the rules enhance that experience. Which I don't.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes, I do believe they use those charts. In all my days of playing those games we always used those charts, or else developed specific charts which accomplished the same thing.

Yet another example of the game being played differently in different communities - in our crew* those charts were/are, as far as I know, not used all that often at the best of times and (particularly the 'town' ones) more often not used at all. Most of the time the DM just wings something if it seems appropriate, with a glaring exception being cases where a module (e.g. JG's Sword of Hope) specifically states when monsters will 'randomly' appear.

* - for sure this is true in my case, and I've a very strong hunch it's true in any local game I've either played in or heard of

Wandering monsters are a KEY component of classic D&D play. Now, I admit we were less likely to use 'town' encounter charts, although we did use them in cases where the PCs were essentially 'wandering around looking for trouble' or otherwise engaged in something 'dungeon like'.

The problem with not using wandering monsters is, it actually causes a lot of issues for classic play. The PCs can simply loiter around all they want and thus it is easy to do things like heal and reacquire spells without even leaving the dungeon. This is exactly what these mechanics were meant to do is include these tactics in the risk/reward cycle.

True. Then again, if an adventure is a closed environment where do the wandering monsters come from? Never mind that often the listed wandering monsters are the sort of things the 'real' dungeon inhabitants would have long since cleared out.

Though there's situations where wandering monsters make perfect sense, I often find wandering monsters and setting consistency tend to fight each other.

I mean, maybe you created some alternative, that's fine, but the point still stands. In any case, my greater point was that the principle of "explicit risk/reward" is an unwritten, but clearly extant, principle of classic D&D.

Agreed. Interesting to note, though, that having just run S1 Lost Caverns (which Gygax wrote) I'll say it's a very high risk, very high reward adventure without a wandering monster in sight: he specifically notes there's no wandering monsters in the caverns.

Which is odd, because the module builds in a perfect means of having them appear (room 9, lower caverns, inbound instead of outbound); and so I chucked some in once the party started taking multi-week trips to town and back.

OK, and how would you use the D&D rules for that? The only parts I can see being of much use is INT will let you read/write/speak different languages, potentially (there are no rules in classic D&D for which ones you have learned however, beyond certain starting choices). Beyond that CHA obviously has some uses. You can use the reaction tables to see if your 'date' decides to stab you with a salad fork or snuggle! haha. Maybe you could make ability checks for other things, STR to impress them with your mighty thews, CON we'll skip my thoughts on that, DEX? WIS, maybe you can make a WIS check to know better than to date half-orcs? Honestly, there isn't a rule in D&D that is really going to help you. You can CALL it 'D&D' if you want, but it is going to be all just made up at the table, or cribbed from some other game. Beyond that you will have to create a process of play, procedures, etc. that work for this type of game.

Or more or less eschew rules in favour of roleplay...?

 

[Ovinomancer]

So what? Role playing is kinda integral part of playing a roleplaying game! And that it in many situations doesn't matter terribly much which system you're using, underlines my point that rules are not terribly important.

This appears to be defining roleplaying as acting well enough to convince/entertain Bob.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. Something like a Diplomacy or Persuade check or some similar skill/action may require the GM to consider a lot if factors. Starting attitude, what the PC says/does, what’s previously been established in the fiction, and so on. He uses this info to calculate a DC or target number or whatever.

None of that needs to replace the roleplaying element.

Yet it far too often does.

The moment a player thinks the chance of success is better via dice than via roleplay, or the moment a player (or GM, for that matter) doesn't want to spend the time required for the roleplaying element to happen, either that replacement or a table argument is going to happen.

If those mechanics aren't present these issues never arise.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

This appears to be defining roleplaying as acting well enough to convince/entertain Bob.

Certainly you should aim to entertain everyone at the table! And you seem to think that the purpose of social encounters is to 'win' them, which is not the case.

 

[Lanefan]

Where did this idea of combat and exploration being the only things worth mechanizing come about? Why must social interaction be entirely freeform?

Mostly, I'd guess, because while social interaction can be played out live in person at the table, combat and exploration (almost universally) cannot; and thus must be abstracted somehow.

Having no adjudication measures for social situations beyond "the GM says so" means that A: those situations lack mechanical weight and impact, and B: players who aren't confident with certain social situations IRL can't participate effectively, just as if a person who didn't know any wilderness survival measures was asked to freeform roleplay an exploration scenario.

A - weight and impact can happen absent mechanics.
B - I see this as their opportunity to learn, and to gain that confidence.