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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7065412" data-attributes="member: 6688937">Both! I have seen (1) "in the wild", but I don't think it is nearly as common as (2). I do believe that it is generally because people aren't "trained" that way by other games and especially rule-dense rpgs often have a much higher wordcount dealing with combat (for that matter, there are plenty of rpgs that have little-to-no fiddly bits outside of combat). My small sample leads me to think that (2) is more prevalent among experienced gamers* and (1) amongst neophytes, but its a relatively small sample size. (1) can also occur in Old-School games when a corner-case or adventure/dungeon-specific rule isn't clear to the players, but that seems to be a different phenomenon. I do really like how Dungeon World lets you mark XP for failing a roll. That really seemed to open it up a lot for some of my players. Then again, I keep coming back to the idea that if you really want to see it in play, you have to incentivize it.hmm...I think that depends on two factors. First, the wordcount balance of the game in question. There's a lot to be said for players feeling confident that their action's results stand. Piles of combat rules add certainty, and a lack of OOC rules leads to uncertainty. This is especially true in games that don't make stakes-setting explicit. I've seen it many times where the fighter player in your example responds by starting a fight to make sure (IMO) that he has certainty in his success. It doesn't help that PCs often completely outclass everyone around them in the violence department. Secondly, the investment we've been talking about. Without investment in complex interests and motivations relevant to the gameworld, the PCs really don't have any good reason not to just kill all the talky people. (Especially, IME, players of "practical" or "alien" races like Dwarves or Elves.)Along those lines, I would note that most combat encounters engage the rather blatant character interest of survival, even for the "mage". I've observed profound changes in "magey" characters' combat behavior (even my own) after they acquire the flight+invisibility combo that removes much of the risk they face in a typical combat. Non-combat encounters rarely seem to engage a similarly universal interests, because failure is more of an option. I suspect that if the player knew that failure in an OOC encounter meant death (or other character loss), you'd see more interest from the fighter. As it is, the fighter's player is more likely to know that the results of the OOC play will, at best, marginally alter the difficulty, sequence, or particulars of subsequent encounters that will come anyway.*Of particular interest to you might be that I know several players who thought the options provided by 4e's improvisation rules were all strictly inferior to the "pre-programmed" moves already on the sheet. "If the improv rules are so good, why do I have all these powers." Strangely, I've observed a few of these players who would complain of being  "strangled" by 4e and pine for the "freedom" of OSR, then play older editions where their fighter literally does nothing other than basic attacks and movements to enable them! People, whaddya gonna do?</blockquote>

Verification