Extensive Character Sheets Are GM Oppression

[Committed Hero]

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...

In most RPGs, the PCs are the kind of exemplary persons that would know.

 

[Reynard]

In most RPGs, the PCs are the kind of exemplary persons that would know.

Maybe, but that undermines the challenge of the expedition. Assuming everyone is on board for that, you are going to want to find a way to make the players responsible for planning.

 

[Umbran]

If nothing else, a designer should know their position on it and elicidate said in rules. If I see OSR on it, it's reasonable to expect no such definition of how to handle "not net defined" elements, and a flat rejection of the "No skill on sheet, no skill in character" many GMs operate with.

So, note that "no skill on sheet, no skill in character" is not the same as "no skill on sheet, can't attempt in character."

The number of things you flat out can't even try to do is usually pretty limited. I, at least, am merely discussing whether the game's definition of "skilled" applies - so, for 5e, whether one's proficiency bonus applies or not.

For the oldest of Old School, this is mostly irrelevant, due to the lack of the concept of being trained in a skill at all.

 

[Reynard]

For the oldest of Old School, this is mostly irrelevant, due to the lack of the concept of being trained in a skill at all.

Right.

"I try and wedge my dagger between the pressure plate and the floorenoigh to get a pebble in there so it won't depress when we walk over it."
"Okay. You do."
"Cool!"
"Now, which one of you is going to walk across first?..."

At this point, a d6 is probably getting rolled...

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

For the oldest of Old School, this is mostly irrelevant, due to the lack of the concept of being trained in a skill at all.

Somehow, the Sugarhill Gang fills mighty dissed.

 

[Squared]

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."

My first response to this was that is an uncharitable read of my post. I'm not a lawyer, and while I'm certain that the lawyers on this forum write with a level of exactitude that mean that you cannot challenge them on an interpretation of what they write, I don't write with that level of precision.

But then I thought, well sure I would let them roll for that.

First of all, I am not in a race, and taking one whole minute to resolve something a player wants to do it not going impact game play.

Context is everything, say describe a cliff and waterfall and one of my players asks if he can swim up it, he has a barbarian after all. I tell him that he does not think it is possible to swim up a 15' waterfall. Let's say that he persists and rolls the dice anyways and it comes up as a critical success. Sure I could just say that he just fails anyways, I didn't ask for the roll and I made it clear that it would not succeed, but players like critical successes so I usually try and do something with it. Like saying that he certainly tries and as the others are watching astonished it looks like he almost does manage to swim up that waterfall before the inevitability of gravity takes over and he splashes back down. I then look around the table and ask if anyone is applauding the effort, we all have a quick laugh, and then move on. Remember that we are all there to have fun and a few jokes and interludes help to break up the adventure and lighten the mood.

Honestly now that I'm thinking about it, this whole scenario seems rather familiar. Pretty sure I did have someone try and swim up a waterfall.

Now of course there is the other side of the coin, sometimes the players are just joking around, other times they misunderstood you. In those cases the player might clarify that they thought they were trying to do something else entirely, we are all humans and misunderstandings are common. The GM not providing a clear enough vision to the players is the usual cause and it is therefore a good idea to backtrack when this is made clear. Perhaps instead the barbarian did a beautiful swan dive into the pool at the base of the waterfall to cool off, then we move on. In any case we manage to continue past the waterfall encounter without it eating them.

On another note, personally I think that very high level barbarians in D&D should be able to swim up a waterfall, or at least do some other sorts of ridiculous, mythic things with crazy high strength. Maybe some day I will finish my rewrite of the D&D 5e classes and subclasses and that can be included....

^2

 

[Squared]

Creativity or detailed rules system?

Personally I think that you can have both, at least to a point.

My personal preference for game system is one that has enough detail that it helps to flesh out characters and give players aa better idea of what they can do while at the same time leaving enough room for the GM to make judgement calls.

Importantly I think that there is a balance point that individual GMs can come up with were they have the creativity and the detailed rules system in tension, supporting each other, rather than in opposition.

I don't think this is something that can be easily codified though. The biggest thing I think is missing in most RPG books are good discussions and examples of different ways to apply the rules. RPG books should be more like books on how to sketch or paint and less like a baking recipe.

^2

 

[Blue]

On another note, personally I think that very high level barbarians in D&D should be able to swim up a waterfall, or at least do some other sorts of ridiculous, mythic things with crazy high strength. Maybe some day I will finish my rewrite of the D&D 5e classes and subclasses and that can be included....

This I'm with. D&D isn't attempting to emulate reality, it's attempting to emulate the high fantasy genre. But there's this odd break where some physical activities - like falling 40 feet or getting hit perfectly by a ogre's club - are treated like high fantasy, others like being able to leap a 30' chasm or do other fantastical on-genre yet non-magical actions.

My first response to this was that is an uncharitable read of my post.

I really wasn't sure how to take it otherwise. Saying "if they attempt an action that's possible I let them roll" is absolutely normal. It's how the game is played and wouldn't need to be said. So the "always" in there seemed to be the single thing you were saying that made it different from bog standard and worth posting. If that wasn't it, I still don't get what you were going at.

 

[aramis erak]

On another note, personally I think that very high level barbarians in D&D should be able to swim up a waterfall, or at least do some other sorts of ridiculous, mythic things with crazy high strength. Maybe some day I will finish my rewrite of the D&D 5e classes and subclasses and that can be included....

That's way more into super-powered than I like most of my quasi-tolkienian, quasi-Vancian, quasi-Moorcockian, quasi-Lieberist fantasy gaming.

This I'm with. D&D isn't attempting to emulate reality, it's attempting to emulate the high fantasy genre.

For me, it's gone way beyond the literary high fantasy to the (to me, extremely unpalatable) Medieval Super Heroes level.

But there's this odd break where some physical activities - like falling 40 feet or getting hit perfectly by a ogre's club - are treated like high fantasy, others like being able to leap a 30' chasm or do other fantastical on-genre yet non-magical actions.

Only when the GM is inconsistent or beyond one or more players' tolerance for supers in their fantasy. And that later tends to show pretty soon in my experience.

I've lost players from both ends of the tolerance for extreme stunts... and I'd just tell the player, "Are you sure you want to try that?" and if they say yes, just hit them with the falling damage, fpor swimming up a waterfall without magic of a swim speed greater than gravity's 450'/round....

 

[Crusadius]

But what if your character sheet doesn't specify how trained you are?

Unless in the gameworld "Wizard" means "Hobo Who Has Been Out In The Sun Slightly Too Long" then we can make assumptions about what training the character has.

For most games the assumption is that a Wizard is rather specialised and spends much time being trained in the arcane arts, almost to the exclusion of everything else excepting maybe other simpler tasks like Buying their Master Beer while Underaged and Sweeping the Floor after spilling the Potions of Explosion.

So yeah. Someone writing "Wizard" on their character sheet probably has specified how much they have trained (in magic to the exclusion of practically everything else).