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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7743647" data-attributes="member: 16814">Quoting you, Tony, instead of a later post on this discussion so that I can thank you for providing the impetus that gelled my thinking on this.  So, thanks!ETA: First, and because I failed to make this initially clear in the below, I'm discussing social skills here.  You'll see where I realized this.  Also, this discussion is D&D centric.  (I think Story Now and Narrativist games don't have this issue because each check is made only by players and stakes for both success and failure are established, so a limitation on future actions is entirely permissible in those systems and doesn't violate agency because the player has to stake that outcome.)Here's my thinking -- we use the phrasing 'you think he's lying' because it's a handy shorthand for imparting the kind of otherwise dense and hard to articulate information necessary to provide the input.  So we skip the actual facts -- the looking left, the perspiration, a tightening of the irises, etc -- because it may not convey the proper information to the player (the player may misunderstand or the GM may not be able to convey in a way the player would understand, etc.) and instead use the shorthand to skip ahead to the point we're trying to make, specifically in this case that the wealth of information your character is receiving and the character's ability to perceive it indicates lying is going on.  In short, the 'you think' is a shortcut to clarity because trying to describe the actual information the character is receiving is long and may be misunderstood in the telling.The problem we're discussing occurs right after this.  On one side, there's the camp (Camp 1) that believe that this information is just that - informational - and that the player has full authority to declare any actions for her PC that she wants.  The "you think" statement is taken solely in an informative sense, a fact or bit of knowledge that they can use or ignore as they wish.On the other side, there's the camp  (Camp 2) that thinks this information is limiting on the player's ability to declare what their PC does.  That the player is not free to violate this established fact and instead must or should adhere to it. (There's also a third camp, which says that the information should strongly bias the player's declarations, but I'm not sure this really differs from Camp 1 or not, because the end point is that the player could still override that bias, they just should be do so judiciously or rarely.)On both sides, this really is irrelevant as to who's rolling - the player or the NPC.  However, for Camp 1, NPCs rolling checks against PCs tends to be viewed as irrelevant or unwanted.  This is because the player can still do whatever they want, so the die roll is largely meaningless in regards to player decisions.  Therefore, Camp 1 tends to adopt playstyles where NPCs don't initiate rolls against players but instead use their skills as challenge difficult benchmarks against player declared actions.  Camp 2, however, seeing the information imparted by the rolls as binding, sees NPC initiated rolls as just another method for rolls to bind players and so doesn't draw a distinction between NPC initiated or player initiated rolls.  But, the real core difference here isn't if NPCs checks can bind PCs, but how the results of a check are viewed -- is the result of a check informational or binding?Clearly, myself and [MENTION=97077]iserith[/MENTION], [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION], and other are in Camp 1 -- checks are informational.  Tony's and others are Camp 2.  One camp or the other aren't better, but this explains the core philosophical issue that divides this discussion (I believe, at least).So, looking to other areas of the game beside social checks, does this continue to play out?  Well, we'll have to divide checks into two categories: informational checks (which I'm discussing above) and those checks used to accomplish a task (like lockpicking).  As for what constitutes the difference between a task resolution and an informational check, I going with whether or not you'd describe the result as something the PC knows or thinks is informational, if you instead describe a change to something outside of the PC that's task resolution.Firstly, for task resolution checks, I think both Camps engage the game the same way -- a success means the task is accomplished.  There are other considerations for failed checks that I'm not going to go into in this post (fail forward, degrees of failure, etc.).  But, I think both camps see task resolution checks the same way.  Camp 1 isn't going to treat a success on a lockpicking check or a check to force a door open as informational, for instance.  For informational checks, though, I can see a few problem areas, one huge one being illusions.  Illusions muck with the information presented to the players, but many tables allow for a PC to act as if something described as present is an illusion, ie they allow the player to declare actions against what their PC observes.  This touches on the informational check Camps in that a check may be made and result in false information being provided due to an illusion.  I still believe there are tables that are strong Camp 2 here and that will require the PC act as if the illusion described is real even if the player has doubts, but I also think there are a lot of Camp 2 on social checks GMs out there that are more Camp 1 in regards to illusions.  At least, I've played at such tables where you had to go along with the social check results but could, at any point, declare an attempt to disbelieve something as an illusion or act as if it were an illusion (this often ended poorly, iirc).  I'd be interested in hearing from many of the posters in this thread about this, from both sides of the discussion.  I don't think it shows any incoherence to be strong Camp 2 on social skills and weak Camp 2 or even Camp 1 on illusions -- this isn't a trap question, it's a curiosity.  Aside:  I've been quite, um, vigorous in my defense, err, offense(?) on abridging player agency.  Honestly, I think this was because I didn't have a solid understanding of the real divide in thinking, and had an extra dollop of righteousness over my own conversion (ever meet an ex-smoker who's almost violently anti-smoking?).  I find now that I can see a clear divide in the discussion and it's as simple as adopting the 'you think' as binding versus informational, I'm less, well, adamant about the issue.  Well, less adamant that I have the right opinion, not less adamant about my opinion, at least.  I suppose this is a beating-around-the-bush apology for some of my more vigorous statements from earlier in the thread.</blockquote>

Verification