GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Aldarc]

So you're pro-freeform RP, but you'd be against removing mental ability scores? Out of curiosity, what are the mental scores providing in play that a freeform narrative concept doesn't? I mean, you could have a "Magic" stat and a "Willpower" stat that do most of the same work, and then freeform RP the character as smart or dumb as you desire, or as charismatic or boring as you desire. To me, that seems better for an OSR style game where freeform RP adjudication is one of the goals of play.

I recall that the OSR game MazeRats only uses Strength, Dexterity, and Will. But admittedly it's an OSR game that doesn't see Pawn stance as a bad thing, particularly since the whole valuing "skilled play" aspect of OSR.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the problem is you keep trying to frame my preferences a certain way, or at least frame freeform RP a certain way. I know what it is you have in mind, I have seen this preference expressed online. But my preferences are more 'moderate' around this subject. I don't mind for example if my character has an 18 INT and I am struggling to piece together clues in a mystery, if the GM says "Okay give me an INT roll" and if I succeed the GM saying something a bit to nudge me like "You seem to recall the man with the eagle tattoo who gave you the package....that tattoo looks like the same kind of eagle in this cage".

I don't think there's a problem at all. I'm just curious, as someone who has different preferences than my own, why certain aspects of X feel good and other aspects don't. It's totally cool to have preferences; interrogating the "why" of various preferences is just really interesting!

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think there are people who don't mind lore/knowledge skills, but are bothered by social skills. I think @Bedrockgames has said things elsewhere that lead me to believe they're in that camp.

It is more that my preferences are not sharply divided into strict categories. I like having knowledge skills for various things. I also like solving puzzles myself in play. There is some gray produced by this preference. When a game makes it harder and harder for me to get the feel of solving the puzzle, then I may have an issue. So I kind of enjoy some of the muddiness in systems that are not strictly catering to a clearly delineated preference (which are usually categories that arose from online discussions that may produce models for conversation and analysis, but I find don't often fit the facts on the ground of what I like or don't like). Not sure if this makes sense. Trying to express it as best I can.

And something I feel I should restate, I do use social skills in my own games. I just use them in ways that don't interfere with how I like to roleplay. Here is a section of text from one of my books that addresses this (it took me a while as a GM and Player to find an approach that fit me). Note that Mental skill here includes a mix of 'social skills' like Persuade and Empathy:

SKILL ROLLS ARE NOT MAGIC BUTTONS
Skill rolls are part of the game to facilitate play. They are meant to aid you in adjudicating the actions players take. Rather than seeing the world through their Skill list, encourage players to see the world through their characters and say what they intend to do without referencing Skills. When you deem a Skill roll necessary, tell them to roll the most appropriate Skill for the action they are taking.

This is especially true of mental Skills. They should not replace dialogue between characters or player description of what they intend to say. A Skill roll is never enough for you to determine an NPCs reaction. To decide how an NPC reacts you need to know what a player character is saying and doing. Then if there is any doubt about how the NPC would respond, you can ask for a Persuade, Deception, or Command roll from the player.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I don't think there's a problem at all. I'm just curious, as someone who has different preferences than my own, why certain aspects of X feel good and other aspects don't. It's totally cool to have preferences; interrogating the "why" of various preferences is just really interesting!

I think you can get led astray interrogating these things. It has certainly happened to me where I thought I found an explanation for what I liked, and generated a kind of rule based on that (a rule that led me to avoid playing games that had X or Y). Then I realized that X or Y wasn't really a problem in itself. It was just the way a particular game used X or Y, or that there too much of X or Y (but actually a little bit of X or Y from time to time, enhanced play). What I try to do now is just build based on what works over time at the table. And that has worked out much better for me

 

[TwoSix]

I recall that the OSR game MazeRats only uses Strength, Dexterity, and Will. But admittedly it's an OSR game that doesn't see Pawn stance as a bad thing, particularly since the whole valuing "skilled play" aspect of OSR.

Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea. I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Late still counts & he'd certainly do it.
And I can envision making a character "inspired" by him who achieved "Sir" earlier.

Fair.

 

[Aldarc]

Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea. I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.

The author Ben Milton (Questing Beast) has a YouTube channel dedicated to OSR reviews and approaches.

 

[Thomas Shey]

More than simple modify.
Full on class builds or purchasing of books.

Most adventurer fantasy RPGs don't even have the capability to run the noncombatant all skills character most of the female nobles and some male nobles in the book series.

I'm not trying to play "gotcha" here, but can you expand on what you mean by that? Because it appears to me once you move away from the D&D-sphere, that's not true.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Pawn stance and OSR play are kinda like peanut butter and chocolate, yea. I think my next game might be more OSR style, so I'm trying to grasp the nuances of the psychology of play, since it doesn't come naturally to me.

One thing I would say about this is stuff like Pawn stance was part of a model of understanding and analyzing games, that occurred outside the OSR itself. Maybe that gave them insights people in the OSR didn't have. But it also, in my opinion, led to blind spots. I would definitely say if you want to appreciate what the OSR is about, to check out conversations within the OSR itself because one thing you will find is their preferences are often not as easily pinned down as a model like this suggests (in the same way we in the OSR don't always have a firm grasp on things like narrative preferences and what they really mean). What you see people actually doing at a table in an OSR game is going to be a lot more helpful in my opinion than taking models like that, and even more helpful than using models within the OSR because I've found those don't really capture live play at the table as well either. I think if your starting point for understanding OSR play is pawn stance, you are going to have trouble really understanding OSR players. Also something to keep in mind is how varied old school play is. I am by no means a spokesperson for the OSR (most of my systems are much too new school for a typical OSR gamer) but I have a lot of old school sensibilities in how I run and structure adventures. I would check out some of the OSR conversations on Youtube and blogs.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think again in these discussions, preferences, get shaved down to the most extreme form they can take (because these are text based conversations about ideas and stark ideas are easier to communicate). In reality, preferences are often more muddy than that. Of the three things you list, only social skills interfere with my ability to free form RP. I suppose some of this comes down to GM rulings in earlier editions, but reaction rolls and ability checks were not coming up in place of RP the tables I gamed at. A reaction roll would often come before RP for example, to set the stage (which feels a bit like how people are in life). Also even if you prefer free form RP, it is very useful to have some levers to pull on in edge cases. There is a school of thought where you are essentially just playing yourself in some RPGs, and for that school, perhaps removing mental attributes would be fine, but that is probably a pretty niche crowd.

A not about skills in earlier editions, they weren't really a big part of the game at all. In OD&D you don't really have skills. And by 2E you have three optional systems for them, and NWPs was the one that got the most development in the core book (and that specifically tried to avoid doing things like replacing RP with a NWP---and you can tell they are walking this line carefully just by how the entires are written).

I should just note that I've seen some of the same critique directed at mental and perceptual skills because they impinge on problem solving and roleplaying out searches and the like. It isn't quite as common, but its far from unknown.