Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5868155" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] - that's a good breakdown of the possibilities, and I agree that (given the mechanical resources that D&D supplies) it can be hard to read the signs.I can't comment on your particular situation (and didn't at all intend it to come across as a criticism of your GMing). I'm just more trying to think about the general phenomenon.At least according to my tentative theory, percieved or actual danger is irrelevant. It's the degree to which the player wants to engage with the scene. My thought is that some of these skill mechanics are used by players as "scene-reframers" rather than as "scene-engagers", and the whole idea that letting skills work this way would be a good idea is already a sign that the game is resigned to a recurring mismatch betweens scenes framed (by GMs) and scenes desired (by players). (I want to emphasise "mismatch", which isn't at all the same as "poor".)Another issue with D&D is there has been a tendency for the gamerules to talk only about the fiction from an in-fiction perspective, and when talking at the meta-perspective to talk only about the mechanics, but not about the fiction. And, therefore, a tendency to not talk at the meta-level about how to engage the fiction. Which might make it harder for players to learn how to flex their imagination muscles.But if the GM is in control, then the GM has already given you the information your PC should have. Now it's up to you to say what else your PC is doing so as to get more information.There's a big diffrence between "I proceed cautiously down the corridor . . ." and just "I roll Trapfinding." The first tells us where your PC is and what s/he is doing. The second doesn't.I think there is a difference between acting out what your PC does - which I don't think is crucial to roleplaying - and explaining what your PC does, which I think is pretty central to RPGing. So I don't particularly care whether or not your act out your speech to the half-ogre, but I want you to tell us what it is that you are saying - for example, "I point out that I have slayed every half-ogre I've met to date, and have the notches on my belt to prove it - can I roll Intimidate?" Now we know what is happening in the fiction. Whereas a plain "I roll Intimidate" leaves it unclear what is happening. Are you talking? Glowering? Waving your battle axe?I think it's up for grabs how detailed we expect the engagement with the fiction to be, but for it to be a RPG involving a shared fictional situation, there has to be some minimum degree of engagement, I think. Of RPG rulebooks I've read, I think that Burning Wheel does the best job of explaining this stuff.I think you are running together here the two options of(1) "Act out what your PC does", which has never been an essential part of tabletop RPGing (eg combat has never required it) but is one particular mode of adjudication (freeform roleplaying),and(2) Explain how your PC is engaging the fiction, and what s/he is attempting to do,which should be the minimum to trigger an attack roll, skill check etc.</blockquote>

Verification