Extensive Character Sheets Are GM Oppression

[MGibster]

And I think you've highlighted one issue the Wizard with Mental 15 would have repairing the wains - lack of proper tools, lack of professional knowledge. It might even be repaired, for a few moments until the horses started pulling.

I'm going to assume someone traveling a decent distance in a wagon is going to have some basic tools and maybe even some spare wood in case something breaks. Like I said earlier, you can't call AAA if something goes wrong and if you drive a wagon long enough something is going to go wrong. It's not a matter of if something goes wrong it's when.

If the damage is bad enough, sure, I wouldn't necessarily allow for repairs. In my Hell on Earth game (post apocalyptic), the PCs had a tank and when it took damage to the body I told them they could not repair it without the proper facilities. It wasn't so much a matter of skill as it was a matter of having the right tools and materials.

 

[Reynard]

Creativity or detailed rules system?

 

[Reynard]

I'm going to assume someone traveling a decent distance in a wagon is going to have some basic tools and maybe even some spare wood in case something breaks.

Why? And I am not be fecetious. It is kind of an important question.

Do we assume a lot about what the PCs are doing and how they are doing it, because the PC is an experienced explorer/traveler/adventurer and the player isn't, or do we put that onus on the player to actually plan and prepare as if they were going on an expedition?

 

[Committed Hero]

For me, the question is "how important is the contemplated activity to the current state of the game?" - or even "what is the PC/party giving up by doing this activity?" For purposes of the discussion, I can envision instances where repairing a wagon would merit more than a passing thought. But as the possibility of needing a repair becomes more important in play, there's a point at which the GM should have considered this circumstance beforehand. Even if the consideration ends with "you can't repair the wagon at this time (you are in the middle of combat/you lack the tools or materials/the wagon is sliding down the cliff/the person you are carrying in the wagon will deteriorate if jostled/whatever)."

 

[Blue]

As a GM I am not a fan of saying "No, you can't do that" to my players. They will always have the opportunity to try and roll for it.

So even if there is no uncertainty -- they will fail on a 20 -- you still let them roll? From the word "always" it seems like you do.

How do your players respond when they roll their best they can and still fail?

Do you think there's any say to speed up "Okay, please make a roll to swim up the waterfall." <player rolls, adds in bonuses, reports to DM> "You fail" so that it takes the same amount of session time as "You won't be able to swim up the waterfall."

 

[Panzeh]

If it was GURPS i'd just look up the skill "wainwright", see what the defaults allowed (some skills cannot default off of IQ or DX), and go from there, i wouldn't feel bad about it. If i let someone with that high an IQ stat into the campaign i'd know that's what i'd be getting into.

 

[aramis erak]

I'm sorry, but this isn't about what's on the PCs sheet. It is about whether the GM considers the use of some form of untrained task resolution.

In the largest example: D&D - if you aren't trained in appropriate tools, you can still make a check to fix your wagon. It is just less likely to succeed.

I think "untrained" is not accurate to Michael's OP... it's a narrow subset of...
I think "Previously undefined" is. That's a different liminal space, a broader one.

He is noting that a player adding defined truths in play isn't his space as a GM to inhibit/prohibit. I strongly disagree with that concept - the agreement to rules is what makes it a game instead of just play. His wain repair vs wainwright is a case where there are four widely accepted GM approaches to resolving that: Say yes, say no, make a roll against the most relevant defined element (Dex or Int, in that example), or make a penalized roll for lack of predefined competence. (I've used all of those over the years. I tend to use the last of those these days, as it's the default mode for most games I've run.)

And, as Snarf and I have noted in different ways, the liminal space of Previously Undefined is readily observed in the history of gaming.

There are games that have mechanics to cover for previously undefined. The strongest examples of this are John Wick's Houses of the Blooded and Blood & Honor. You can always make a Risk¹ to define the undefined in those two games. In fact, the story emerges from play both from explicitly changing things already established in prior risks, and by defining previously undefined things.

WEG Star Wars has a definition-of-state action for one skill: Linguistics. Do you know a given language? The difficulty is based upon how rare the language is and whether you can make & perceive the signals - sounds, or visual cues, or kinetics. Once you've rolled, say, for Wookie, it's a known thing, and goes on the sheet...

Burning Wheel and Burning Empires have a wises to define truths option. And Circles. In the case of circles, it's defining the unknown of "is ___ available"... while Wises, you make the statement you want to be true, the GM has you roll on the suitable wises. In the case of Wises, it's I know X, is X correct or erroneous?

My fundamental counter to Michael's core complaint as exemplified by the wainwright example is that anything in game is defining the previously undefined, and setting the line is axiomatically the GM's first and most important role... since all resolutions can be seen to be doing either define something previously undefined, or changing something's defined state. Like the Orc... my attack is changing his defined state (aggressive pigman with greenish skin, up in my character's grill, in good health...) to that of Corpse-of-Orc, but probably only getting to "wearing down"...

The classic line is: I control what my character's emotions and attempts at action are. The GM, often by using the rules, determines what the outcome is.

-=-=-=-=-
¹ "Risk" in this context is game specific jargon for invoking the rolling mechanic.

 

[Umbran]

Do we assume a lot about what the PCs are doing and how they are doing it, because the PC is an experienced explorer/traveler/adventurer and the player isn't, or do we put that onus on the player to actually plan and prepare as if they were going on an expedition?

Do any of us really know what's required to plan and prepare for going on a wagon expedition? There are historians who know in detail what a typical group taking a Prairie Schooner across North America, but... we aren't those historians. Our game wasn't written by those historians. We are gamers, not historical reenactors...

We can only really put the onus on the player so prepare for what the GM/rules throw at them. Then, if the GM hasn't suitably telegraphed the challenges, expecting the players to prepare for them is kind of an "Aha! Gotcha!" of design.

Now, this is a common approach to "skilled play" in some quarters - the players learn what the GM does, and the players come to guess what the challenges might be. But, that ought to be agreed upon before play begins.

So, the answer to, "Do we do X?" ought to be, "Some of us might, as part of our table agreements."

 

[TaranTheWanderer]

I mean, being smart doesn't mean you're proficient in a task. I'd still ask for a craft roll, despite it being 0 (if that's the rules of the game).

Or, if it's about 'proficiency', you could ask, "What makes you so knowledgeable about wagons?" "My father was a wainwright",

"ok, fine, put it on your character sheet." Now it's codified. The next time they try to fix a boat, they can't say they were a shipwright.

In short, I don't mind people trying stuff, despite being at some kind of disadvantage and, I don't mind giving people an advantage if they can create the fiction where their character might be proficient in something. But, once the fiction is established, they can't change their mind.

 

[Umbran]

I think "untrained" is not accurate to Michael's OP...

The player/character made no claim to appropriate training, so I am not sure how it is not accurate.

He is noting that a player adding defined truths in play isn't his space as a GM to inhibit/prohibit.

Well, this is why I put it the way I did. They said, 'I can figure it out," stating it as a truth. That was technically an inappropriate assertion, as the player usually cannot unilaterally assert success on a specific task resolution. "I should be able to figure it out," would have been better. But still, this is about task resolution.

The player did not, as I read it, assert some as yet unknown past narrative that applied to the situation, so the question of it being the GM's place to prohibit that or not doesn't enter into it.