GM Authority (Edited For Clarity, Post #148)

[Thomas Shey]

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.

As I recall, that's pretty much the tact Shadow of the Demon Lord takes in its stats.

 

[Minigiant]

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.

Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.

But ASOIAF is full of them.

 

[TwoSix]

As I recall, that's pretty much the tact Shadow of the Demon Lord takes in its stats.

If Shadow of the Weird Wizard comes out before my next game starts, that's definitely an option I'm considering. SotDL with a little less grimdark in its core is close to my perfect system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Sure, and I think I mentioned this in one of my other posts. There are some skills I don't particularly like for this reason. But it would just be difficult for me to make a hard rule about it, because it isn't as black and white as this in practice. It is more about the abundance of such mechanics. In 3E there was an explosion of core skills for handling things that might otherwise mostly, though not always, been handled by just playing it out at the table (whether that be solving a puzzle or talking in character). And the culture around play shifted too, toward a more rules as written approach. So I think those two things made it harder. But it isn't like having a rule for intelligence is going to totally take me out of the game. That is a relatively soft mechanic as it appears in earlier versions of D&D. I found in practice, in 3E many of the things I liked handling more freeform, because I liked that direct interaction with the setting and NPCs, simply wasn't happening as much and was often being replaced by rolls. Not all of this was strictly due to the system. Many of those types of skills were written one way, but used another in practice. But overall the system was just more robust when it came to non-combat skills and in particular the types of skills that might just be handled by having the player say what it is they want to do and have the GM respond in an older game. But again, not black and white. You do see some of those things in earlier editions, they just seem more on the edge, or more soft than how they felt in 3E and later editions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.

But ASOIAF is full of them.

Ah, so you're limiting your point to class-based games. Carry on.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, and I think I mentioned this in one of my other posts.

Yeah, it was after the one I responded to.

There are some skills I don't particularly like for this reason. But it would just be difficult for me to make a hard rule about it, because it isn't as black and white as this in practice. It is more about the abundance of such mechanics. In 3E there was an explosion of core skills for handling things that might otherwise mostly, though not always, been handled by just playing it out at the table (whether that be solving a puzzle or talking in character). And the culture around play shifted too, toward a more rules as written approach. So I think those two things made it harder. But it isn't like having a rule for intelligence is going to totally take me out of the game. That is a relatively soft mechanic as it appears in earlier versions of D&D. I found in practice, in 3E many of the things I liked handling more freeform, because I liked that direct interaction with the setting and NPCs, simply wasn't happening as much and was often being replaced by rolls. Not all of this was strictly due to the system. Many of those types of skills were written one way, but used another in practice. But overall the system was just more robust when it came to non-combat skills and in particular the types of skills that might just be handled by having the player say what it is they want to do and have the GM respond in an older game. But again, not black and white. You do see some of those things in earlier editions, they just seem more on the edge, or more soft than how they felt in 3E and later editions.

All fair. I've got it easy in that I'm kind of at a place where I want some interaction of the player with almost all spheres of influence (social, intellectual, physical) but I also want the mechanics to prop that up both for those times when someone is just kind of personally bad in an areas (whether its doing investigations, seducing a noble or conducting a fencing fight) or just isn't feeling it that day.

 

[Thomas Shey]

If Shadow of the Weird Wizard comes out before my next game starts, that's definitely an option I'm considering. SotDL with a little less grimdark in its core is close to my perfect system.

I wouldn't go that far with me, but the SotDL system was definitely functional and one of the few D&D-sphere ones I'd consider running. But like you say, the grimdark, uhm...

 

[macd21]

Most class based adventurer games lack a core "Noble" or "Princess" class.

But ASOIAF is full of them.

So just assume the GM in the OP is using one that does. It’s completely irrelevant to the OP’s question, because in the hypothetical scenario it’s player 4 who’s a problem, not player 2.

 

[tetrasodium]

I'm not sure why it's "important" to not do it. The first part you mention is primarily about the fidelity of simulation, which may or may not be important for a given play group.

And again, most people I know totally OK with letting the rule set handle magic skills or physical capabilities, it's specifically the social skills that a large amount of people people like to handle freeform. That's totally OK as a game preference, I'm just wondering why it hasn't been catered to.

It's important because most d&d players are humans closer to commoner or even slightly above it than they are a demon of temptation, dragon with a few thousand years experience, or whatever... which is why I mentioned what I mentioned about a wide variety of monsters in the pot you quoted . "throw out the rules and roleplay whatever you feel like however you feel using your skills & your skills alone" is something that is catered to in most U cities & likely outside the US anywhere you can find an improv night/class for theater folks & such.

It's not catered to much in roleplaying games because a game requires rules to set the limits of what is/is not allowed & how it can be done but probably the closest I can think of is fate where compels, stunts, &maneuvers can be leveraged socially to force the hand of other players/npcs but fate literally has a social combat stress track & set of consequences for it that works exactly like physical combat. Fate social stuff would have a hard time merging with d&d because the games are so different mechanically.

 

[Minigiant]

So just assume the GM in the OP is using one that does. It’s completely irrelevant to the OP’s question, because in the hypothetical scenario it’s player 4 who’s a problem, not player 2.

Ah, so you're limiting your point to class-based games. Carry on.

Dew class systems work for ASOIAF. There are like 6 "pillars" in the game at least with characters with many skills.

A DM who suggests a GOT campaign without listing a system designed for it game or a buttload of house rules gives me pause.