Combat vs. Role-playing

[Hussar]

I'm talking about really turning the rules "off" in specific situations. Like when a player needs to make a DC 25 Diplomacy check in order to accomplish a task and the DM just declares success based on what the player actually said. That kind of thing.

See, me, I loathe that sort of thing. Hate it with a passion. Because, so often, it leads to people dump statting Charisma, and then playing whatever character they want to play anyway.

Just because you, the player, can come up with that great argument that convinces the dragon to let you go, doesn't mean that you character actually can. In the same way that I'm fairly sure that you cannot swing a sword as well as your 15th level barbarian can. (Maybe you can, but, work with me here. ) I find it far too intrusive to allow players to ignore their character sheets.

Note, that this is all my personal opinion. I'm not saying it's wrong for you. I am saying that I would not want the rules to support the idea that the rules should be chucked just because it somehow fits the story. I don't buy the idea of story first. The dice direct the action, you determine the script.

 

[Mallus]

Because, so often, it leads to people dump statting Charisma, and then playing whatever character they want to play anyway.

See, I couldn't care less about dump statting. There are plenty of things that can derail a D&D game. That isn't one of them.

Just because you, the player, can come up with that great argument that convinces the dragon to let you go, doesn't mean that you character actually can.

I'm much more interested in the players and their contributions at the table. I try not to negate actual play, even when it doesn't synch up with what's on the character sheet. I'm probably motivated by selfishness, I get a big kick out of hearing players come up with the great arguments. It's a significant part of the pleasure I get from the game. I find listening to them roll a d20 and add some modifiers much less entertaining.

I am saying that I would not want the rules to support the idea that the rules should be chucked just because it somehow fits the story. I don't buy the idea of story first.

That's not what I was advocating. I didn't say a word about story. I was talking about how to satisfy players with different approaches to social encounters. Let the players who want to roll for it, roll and those who want to talk it out, talk. Call it a non-unified mechanic.

 

[Hussar]

That's not what I was advocating. I didn't say a word about story. I was talking about how to satisfy players with different approaches to social encounters. Let the players who want to roll for it, roll and those who want to talk it out, talk. Call it a non-unified mechanic.

Not in so many words, but, effectively, you have placed story first. By ignoring resolution mechanics, you have decided that the results that you prefer take precedence over what the game might say. The game might agree with you, or it might not.

However, by overruling mechanics, you take the game out of the picture entirely and substitute your version of how the event should unfold.

Not that this is a bad thing. It is for me. I don't care for it. I much prefer a player to play the character in front of him. But, that works for me. I did say that this was my personal preference.

 

[helium3]

Not in so many words, but, effectively, you have placed story first. By ignoring resolution mechanics, you have decided that the results that you prefer take precedence over what the game might say. The game might agree with you, or it might not.

However, by overruling mechanics, you take the game out of the picture entirely and substitute your version of how the event should unfold.

I'm sort of in the middle of the road here. I'm not as focused on the "story" that's told as I am on the experience at the table. If the dice dish out a roll that's going to make the "experience" really suck I generally start to consider how I'll use rule zero.

As for Diplomacy, the way I handle it is to let the players roll their check if they want to at the start and then we basically role-play out the encounter, with the understanding that the outcome will be whatever the dice roll said it was. The dice may say that the diplomacy check is successful, but they don't say how long it takes to happen. This usually works pretty well for me.

What also helps is that I haven't fallen prey to this weird idea that a lot of players seem to have that using the Diplomacy skill is like giving a really convincing speech. Real diplomacy isn't like that at all. It's more like a slow and methodical conversation. Both sides have an agenda and Diplomacy is the act of finding a middle ground that makes both sides reasonably happy.

I also, as the DM, make all the Diplomacy rolls "behind the veil." So when I said earlier that I let the players roll their check, I meant I let them decide to roll a check. They don't have to if they don't want to. Alternatively, they can choose to roll the check later in the encounter.

 

[Mallus]

Not in so many words, but, effectively, you have placed story first.

Only if I have a predetermined outcome in mind. If I don't have a specific story to tell, how can I put it first? And I usually don't. Ask my players. (Rolzup, shilsen, Atlatl, you reading this thread??)

By ignoring resolution mechanics, you have decided that the results that you prefer take precedence over what the game might say.

That's not the way I'd phrase it. I just play the NPC's according to personalities and motivations that I sketched out for them. For all intents and purposes, I am the game at that point. The environment the PC's interact with.

I did say that this was my personal preference.

Oh, sure. At this point I'm just trying to clarify as you kinda-sorta misrepresented what I was saying.

 

[LostSoul]

I like to play it like this:

When there is a conflict, roll the dice.
When there is no conflict, don't roll.

If it turns out that there isn't any conflict because of what the player said, then there is no need to roll.

Example:
High Priest (HP), an NPC, hates the PC, and is working to politically destroy him. PC wants to get some troops from him.
HP: Ah, I see you have requested troops. What makes you think I'm going to give them to you?
PC: Because I'm going to use them to destroy your enemy.
HP: Ah, very good! You're starting to come around. Take what you need.

I was expecting a conflict, but the player's role-playing negated it.

 

[outsider]

What I do think is a more accurate characterization of the goal of the D&D rules is that they try to provide a rule for every action where a Player and Dm may disagree about the likelyhood of that actions success or failure. I wont pretend that the rules that have been created are always good to have around, or that they even always make sense. But for the most part, many of the rules that exist are quite reasonable, at least in the abstract.

Lord Zardoz's post is pretty brilliant. It's something I've been wanting to put into words myself for a while now, and he did it better than anything I came up with.

Rules exist to balance control over the story between the DM and the players. The ogre example is a great example of why this is important. Even good DMs will often default to players failing in an action that deviates from their intended story when there are no rules present to adjudicate the action. They don't do it to be jerks, and alot of the time they don't even realise that they are doing it. They still do it though, some more frequently than others.

Players SHOULD have alot of control over how the story turns out, and rules give them some of that control. D&D has made alot of moves towards player empowerment since 3rd edition, and I think that's a really good thing.