Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A thought about Social Mechanics
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hriston" data-source="post: 9200634" data-attributes="member: 6787503"><p>If there's no rule, then what do you mean by "how the game is designed"? Surely, the design is to be found in the rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p>When I play a PC, I sometimes use first-person (in character) diction and sometimes use third-person (out of character) diction to declare my character's actions. This is a different issue from whether I engage in improvisational acting, which I would say is not a goal I have in playing D&D, although sometimes I speak at the table the words that my character says in the fiction. I don't particularly try to speak them convincingly or with the naturalism of an actor. For me, that's just an entirely different activity from playing an RPG.</p><p></p><p>But I do use first person, in-character diction to make action declarations, and often those action declarations are resolved with ability checks, combining at the table to two actions you've described. The problem is still invisible to me because, as I've said, I don't assume the check is representative of the action. I believe the problem is a by-product of making such an assumption. </p><p></p><p>I also don't know what you mean when you say they haven't been designed to be combined like that. They're combined in the basic pattern of gameplay which is for the player to declare actions for their character (for which first-person diction is an option) and for the DM to resolve said actions, often by calling for an ability check. That's how the game is designed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Have you tried solving the problem by playing according to the intent instead of fighting it?</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is where we differ, and I don't think you've convincingly made an argument that this is the case. They combine by the player doing their roleplaying (which may include active roleplaying) and the DM possibly calling for an ability check to resolve the interaction.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, there is, and it's the same procedure in place when only descriptive roleplaying is used. An ability check can be used to determine the outcome of the interaction. The player can determine that their active roleplaying may or may not have played a part in their success or failure in the interaction depending on the circumstances involved.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Why? If the the player at the table, performing as their character, truly gives an epic speech, witnessed by the other players who are present, and then fails an ability check called for by the DM to resolve the interaction, what reason would anyone at the table (including the player) have to believe that the player's speech was to blame for the failure?</p><p></p><p></p><p>It seems that I do. Have a good one!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hriston, post: 9200634, member: 6787503"] If there's no rule, then what do you mean by "how the game is designed"? Surely, the design is to be found in the rules. When I play a PC, I sometimes use first-person (in character) diction and sometimes use third-person (out of character) diction to declare my character's actions. This is a different issue from whether I engage in improvisational acting, which I would say is not a goal I have in playing D&D, although sometimes I speak at the table the words that my character says in the fiction. I don't particularly try to speak them convincingly or with the naturalism of an actor. For me, that's just an entirely different activity from playing an RPG. But I do use first person, in-character diction to make action declarations, and often those action declarations are resolved with ability checks, combining at the table to two actions you've described. The problem is still invisible to me because, as I've said, I don't assume the check is representative of the action. I believe the problem is a by-product of making such an assumption. I also don't know what you mean when you say they haven't been designed to be combined like that. They're combined in the basic pattern of gameplay which is for the player to declare actions for their character (for which first-person diction is an option) and for the DM to resolve said actions, often by calling for an ability check. That's how the game is designed. Have you tried solving the problem by playing according to the intent instead of fighting it? This is where we differ, and I don't think you've convincingly made an argument that this is the case. They combine by the player doing their roleplaying (which may include active roleplaying) and the DM possibly calling for an ability check to resolve the interaction. Yes, there is, and it's the same procedure in place when only descriptive roleplaying is used. An ability check can be used to determine the outcome of the interaction. The player can determine that their active roleplaying may or may not have played a part in their success or failure in the interaction depending on the circumstances involved. Why? If the the player at the table, performing as their character, truly gives an epic speech, witnessed by the other players who are present, and then fails an ability check called for by the DM to resolve the interaction, what reason would anyone at the table (including the player) have to believe that the player's speech was to blame for the failure? It seems that I do. Have a good one! [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A thought about Social Mechanics
Top