Critical Role Critical Role Episode #26 - spoilers!

[iserith]

One question is, is it OK for a player to roleplay their character in such a way that it may bring negative consequences to themselves and the group. And to that I say, absolutely it's OK! In fact, when I have a player roleplay that way, I get excited, because it fits into the kinds of games I want, and that is the kind of player I want - one who is focused on "telling a good story" instead of focused on "I need to win this game." My belief is that roleplaying is primarily a group story-telling activity with game elements thrown in, rather than a game with story-telling elements thrown in. There is a balance there, though, and it's not polite to play a character with so many flaws that they are constantly a hindrance and problem to their teammates. Ashley was neither; she did fine!

I think this is somewhat close to a false dichotomy though. It's very possible to both tell a good story and focus on "winning," assuming that means you're shooting for more success than failure or even mostly success. There are so many ways to portray a character's flaws in an entertaining way that isn't also actively hurting the rest of the party.

But the other question is whether a player can determine the actual crunch and rules to apply to a given situation. And I say, no! That's the DM's job, and it begins to get a bit rude when players are deciding that they are going to make a skill roll just because they should, or deciding they are going to get advantage, because reasons, without at least asking the DM. Usually they shouldn't even ask, unless it's a situation where a roll might need to apply and it's easy for a DM to pass over it. Otherwise, they should focus on the narrative of what they are doing, and let the DM decide if any crunch rules and dice rolls and modifiers should apply. Again, Ashley asked Matt in a courteous way and was respecting his decision one way or another, so she did fine.

Right.

 

[5ekyu]

I agree with the core point you are making, but I think you are confusing two different questions.

One question is, is it OK for a player to roleplay their character in such a way that it may bring negative consequences to themselves and the group. And to that I say, absolutely it's OK! In fact, when I have a player roleplay that way, I get excited, because it fits into the kinds of games I want, and that is the kind of player I want - one who is focused on "telling a good story" instead of focused on "I need to win this game." My belief is that roleplaying is primarily a group story-telling activity with game elements thrown in, rather than a game with story-telling elements thrown in. There is a balance there, though, and it's not polite to play a character with so many flaws that they are constantly a hindrance and problem to their teammates. Ashley was neither; she did fine!

But the other question is whether a player can determine the actual crunch and rules to apply to a given situation. And I say, no! That's the DM's job, and it begins to get a bit rude when players are deciding that they are going to make a skill roll just because they should, or deciding they are going to get advantage, because reasons, without at least asking the DM. Usually they shouldn't even ask, unless it's a situation where a roll might need to apply and it's easy for a DM to pass over it. Otherwise, they should focus on the narrative of what they are doing, and let the DM decide if any crunch rules and dice rolls and modifiers should apply. Again, Ashley asked Matt in a courteous way and was respecting his decision one way or another, so she did fine.

Why is there a second question here?

The player decided to play her flaws.
The gm and the table all agreed when she asked them.

The apoarent hot button issue for some of players having the utter temerity to apply limitations to their checks is a fabrication created by foljs who misconstrued the circumstance.

But let me also be clear... A GM or player who gets their dander rule-fu adherence up to the point that they see a problem with "with this flaw, i think my character is so rattled by this i will take disadvantage on mt attack check" (on the grounds of "RAW thats in the GM box" **and** a notion that they are hutting their party chances by taking a mechanical penalty) but who is fine with "with this flaw i think my character is rattled so she will move away and not attack this turn" is missing the forest for thw RAW defend the GM box trees.

If "i attack with normal chances" is within the players right to choose *and* i choose to not attack at all is within her right to choose then it seems to be putting the RAW and defend the RAW beyond "common sense" to argue that "i move in and attack with disadvantage" is now a case for the GM to step in and say "no", thats my job dont be rude."

The option she chose was halfway (so to speak) between two options she has fully in her control (full swing or no swing.) So, by all means, stand your GM ground and say "no" and "rude" but it wont make it seem any more sensible a hill to die on.

If a GM told me no in that exact same case, i would absolutely look up and say "ok, so she doesnt attack, doesnt take the attack action, cuz shes so rattled" which is even more "penalizing" the group...

Maybe one day that gm would allow me to choose penalties for my own character between "no penalty" and "no action" eventually,

more options than all or nothing often seem appropriate.

 

[5ekyu]

My Stupid Rule
If while describong a rule i feel stupid doing so, i dont use that rule.

"Ok so, you can choose to attack full out or you can choose to not attack at all but you cannot choose to attack half-heartily and take disadvantage... errr... Wait... let me think about that"

 

[robus]

My Stupid Rule
If while describong a rule i feel stupid doing so, i dont use that rule.

"Ok so, you can choose to attack full out or you can choose to not attack at all but you cannot choose to attack half-heartily and take disadvantage... errr... Wait... let me think about that"

A bit of a strawman perhaps? any rule can described stupidly if you try!

 

[Jester David]

I think this is somewhat close to a false dichotomy though. It's very possible to both tell a good story and focus on "winning," assuming that means you're shooting for more success than failure or even mostly success. There are so many ways to portray a character's flaws in an entertaining way that isn't also actively hurting the rest of the party.

This assumes that there is only one way to “win”.
Not everyone prioritized winning at combat. Or that not doing making the best tactical decision “hurts” the rest of the party.

Saying that you can only present flaws in ways that don’t negatively impact combat reeks of badwrongfun.

 

[5ekyu]

A bit of a strawman perhaps? any rule can described stupidly if you try!

How is this a strawman in this case.

I am pretty sure statements that choosing not to fight or to runaway are the players choice, choices to go in and attack are the players choice but explicitly choices to run in and make attacks at a disadvantage are not... do i need to go dig out quotes?

"But the other question is whether a player can determine the actual crunch and rules to apply to a given situation. And I say, no! "

thats just one

"That's weird. You can be frightened without being Frightened and I don't see how that's a player's role to decide. I could see the DM mandating it for reasons or offering it as an option to the player in exchange for Inspiration (not a great trade, but better than nothing). But the player deciding? Nah."

and...

"Right - all this player needed to do to show their fear was to remain out of the fight (just take non-combat actions - dash, dodge) and for a melee fighter, just stay out of melee range and take cover."

There is more...

So let me ask specifically you who seems to be at least tangentially agreeing with the "player should not give themselves mechanical disadvantages" thing

If you would be so fine as to answer me these questions three which have nothing to do with sparrows.

1 is it acceptable for the player to decide "my character will rush in and attack"?
2. is it acceptable for the player to decide "my player will stay back and stay away because she is afraid."?
3. is it acceptable for the player to decide "my character will rush in an attack at a disadvantage because she is afraid"?

You have seemed to sy the latter is if not "where i would say no" at least an area you see as questionable?

But please, if you saw that posing of the POV i said earlier as a strawman, please tell me, what are your feelings on whether or not it is acceptable in your games for a play to do 1, 2 and 3 or are all of the inacceptable, or are some not and others yes? Asking from a GM-Player perspective, not some sor tof implied bait and switch sort of thing since that wasnt what happened here and thats not the debate.

Are any of 1-2-3 "not a players role to decide" or "the player deciding that, nah"

 

[5ekyu]

This assumes that there is only one way to “win”.
Not everyone prioritized winning at combat. Or that not doing making the best tactical decision “hurts” the rest of the party.

Saying that you can only present flaws in ways that don’t negatively impact combat reeks of badwrongfun.

Agree and also, it points to a specific sets of values as far as what is important - basically sounding like "all that role play stuff is fine as long as it doesn't get in the way of combat" which is a more common than not perspective in some games/gamers.

As i have said, as GM i might have suggested to her to take a disad on init roll for hesitation but i would have no problem if she stuck with disad on attacks. i am not gonna plant my GM rights and "how the game is played" flag and die to defend the hill of "you cant call disadvantage, player" when i allow her to hold the hills of "not attack at all" and "attack fully".

 

[iserith]

This assumes that there is only one way to “win”.
Not everyone prioritized winning at combat. Or that not doing making the best tactical decision “hurts” the rest of the party.

Saying that you can only present flaws in ways that don’t negatively impact combat reeks of badwrongfun.

The assumption stated was narrowly defined and not exclusive or exhaustive. You may also note that I did not refer in any way to the type of challenge at which a player might want to "win." A player may wish to achieve success in all three pillars, not just combat. I also did not assert that "you can only present flaws in ways that don't negatively impact combat." I only said that you can do it, if you choose.

If you're going to try to criticize my arguments, which is fine by me, at least please try to stick to criticizing arguments I've actually made.

 

[Henry]

[MENTION=6919838]5ekyu[/MENTION] makes a great point here that I did not consider - if the player has full control of attacking or doing nothing or running away, attacking with disadvantage would not give them anything they did not already possess, and it also makes for a more engaging story.

I was listening to a recent episode of the Glass Cannon Podcast (those guys are the “Critical Role” of Pathfinder, I highly recommend them!) and one player gave his character the shaken condition for several rounds because of a story-related reason involving his past coming back to haunt him in the middle of a combat. It surprised me, but also was perfectly within the bounds of the story at that moment. The same case was made there.

 

[iserith]

@5ekyu makes a great point here that I did not consider - if the player has full control of attacking or doing nothing or running away, attacking with disadvantage would not give them anything they did not already possess, and it also makes for a more engaging story.

I can't see the posts you refer to as that poster has me blocked, but I would say a couple of things about the above. What the player gains in the latter case is the ability to make DM calls, at least in this case, which isn't desirable to someone like me who prefers players and DMs stay in their prescribed roles. As well, I don't see why the mechanic necessarily makes for a more engaging story. It seems reasonable that an engaging story can be achieved without the mechanical penalty. To add to that, I would say it could make for less engaging stories over time (edit: by your standard) as players seek to avoid penalties for portraying their characters in certain ways. An incentive like Inspiration is in my experience a much more assured way to get players to act according to established characteristics - because there's a payoff for making choices that might not be the most optimal, but that are in line with said personal characteristics.