Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7560118" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], my understanding is that 5e D&D does not permit the GM to make social checks resulting from NPC behaviour in the fiction which then yield results that are binding on players in their play of their PCs. But I'm not an expert on 5e D&D, so perhaps there is an option to that effect that I'm not aware of.</p><p></p><p>As far as how to set DCs in 5e is concerned, it's not a system that I play, and one reason that I don't play it is that I think it lacks robust action resolution mechanics for anything outside of combat.</p><p></p><p>As far as your example of play is concerned, you are the one who posted it and (implicitly) invited comment. In your example of play, the player has declared an action - to the effect of <em>I look at the giant imploringly and gesture with my hand for the return of my shard</em> - and you have unilaterally decided the outcome of that action based on your conception of what is reasonable for a giant. You haven't spelled out all your reasoning (and obviously are not obliged to) - for instance, upthread I noted the possible relevance of alignment to the situation, and (I think) you XPed that post, but you haven't actually indicated whether your decision-making as GM was affected by a view that a CE being will never respond to imploring looks.</p><p></p><p>To me, a key feature of your example of play is that your conception of what is reasonable for the giant <em>differs from that of the player</em> - unless there is something else going on that you haven't mentioned (like the player saying something or making a face or whatever that indicated that s/he thought the action declaration was a try-on), the player clearly thought that it <em>might be reasonable</em> for the giant to respond to the request.</p><p></p><p>This feeds directly into the claim from you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] that there is no difference, to RPG play, between the GM unilaterally deciding an outcome and the GM calling for a check. That claim is, in my view, rebutted by the following point <a href="http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html" target="_blank">made by Vincent Baker</a>:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players <em>and </em>GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Mechanics . . . exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.</p><p></p><p>We can elaborate a bit: we have to assume that the action declaration and hence "negotiation" is sincere and made in good faith (something I already alluded to above, when I said I'm assuming that the player has not conceded that the action declaration is a try-on); likewise I am assuming that the use of the mechanics is done sincerely and in good faith.</p><p></p><p>To go back to the example of Streetwise in Classic Traveller, the rules state some example DCs from low "heat" (find an official who readily issues licences) to high "heat" (find a supplier of illicit guns). So everyone at the table already knows that for someone with Streetwise skill at level 1 low heat stuff is fairly easy (throw 4+ on 2d6, an 11 in 12 success rate, to find that official) and even high heat stuff is not too hard (throw 8+ to find the arms dealer, a 5 in 12 success rate); whereas for someone with no skill the low heat stuff is hard (throw 10+ on 2d6 to find the official, a 1 in 6 success rate) and the high heat stuff is impossible (throw 14+ on 2d6 to find the arms dealer).</p><p></p><p>This knowledge, and the actual play of the game in accordance with it, is what "ease<s> and constrain<s> real-world social negotiation" between player and referee about the outcome of the player's PC's attempt to make contact with shady/criminal elements. The GM is not exercising unilateral control over the content of the shared fiction. What comes next in the shared fiction depends upon the outcome of the dice throw, where the odds have been set in accordance with that prior, mutually understood procedure.</s></s></p><p><s><s></s></s></p><p><s><s>OK. I'm not sure how that bears on what anyone is saying in this thread. Which poster in this thread do you think plays a game "lacking in roleplaying depth"?</s></s></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7560118, member: 42582"] [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], my understanding is that 5e D&D does not permit the GM to make social checks resulting from NPC behaviour in the fiction which then yield results that are binding on players in their play of their PCs. But I'm not an expert on 5e D&D, so perhaps there is an option to that effect that I'm not aware of. As far as how to set DCs in 5e is concerned, it's not a system that I play, and one reason that I don't play it is that I think it lacks robust action resolution mechanics for anything outside of combat. As far as your example of play is concerned, you are the one who posted it and (implicitly) invited comment. In your example of play, the player has declared an action - to the effect of [I]I look at the giant imploringly and gesture with my hand for the return of my shard[/I] - and you have unilaterally decided the outcome of that action based on your conception of what is reasonable for a giant. You haven't spelled out all your reasoning (and obviously are not obliged to) - for instance, upthread I noted the possible relevance of alignment to the situation, and (I think) you XPed that post, but you haven't actually indicated whether your decision-making as GM was affected by a view that a CE being will never respond to imploring looks. To me, a key feature of your example of play is that your conception of what is reasonable for the giant [I]differs from that of the player[/I] - unless there is something else going on that you haven't mentioned (like the player saying something or making a face or whatever that indicated that s/he thought the action declaration was a try-on), the player clearly thought that it [I]might be reasonable[/I] for the giant to respond to the request. This feeds directly into the claim from you and [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] that there is no difference, to RPG play, between the GM unilaterally deciding an outcome and the GM calling for a check. That claim is, in my view, rebutted by the following point [url=http://lumpley.com/hardcore.html]made by Vincent Baker[/url]: [indent]Roleplaying is negotiated imagination. In order for any thing to be true in game, all the participants in the game (players [I]and [/I]GMs, if you've even got such things) have to understand and assent to it. When you're roleplaying, what you're doing is a) suggesting things that might be true in the game and then b) negotiating with the other participants to determine whether they're actually true or not. . . . Mechanics . . . exist to ease and constrain real-world social negotiation between the players at the table. That's their sole and crucial function.[/indent] We can elaborate a bit: we have to assume that the action declaration and hence "negotiation" is sincere and made in good faith (something I already alluded to above, when I said I'm assuming that the player has not conceded that the action declaration is a try-on); likewise I am assuming that the use of the mechanics is done sincerely and in good faith. To go back to the example of Streetwise in Classic Traveller, the rules state some example DCs from low "heat" (find an official who readily issues licences) to high "heat" (find a supplier of illicit guns). So everyone at the table already knows that for someone with Streetwise skill at level 1 low heat stuff is fairly easy (throw 4+ on 2d6, an 11 in 12 success rate, to find that official) and even high heat stuff is not too hard (throw 8+ to find the arms dealer, a 5 in 12 success rate); whereas for someone with no skill the low heat stuff is hard (throw 10+ on 2d6 to find the official, a 1 in 6 success rate) and the high heat stuff is impossible (throw 14+ on 2d6 to find the arms dealer). This knowledge, and the actual play of the game in accordance with it, is what "ease[s] and constrain[s] real-world social negotiation" between player and referee about the outcome of the player's PC's attempt to make contact with shady/criminal elements. The GM is not exercising unilateral control over the content of the shared fiction. What comes next in the shared fiction depends upon the outcome of the dice throw, where the odds have been set in accordance with that prior, mutually understood procedure. OK. I'm not sure how that bears on what anyone is saying in this thread. Which poster in this thread do you think plays a game "lacking in roleplaying depth"?[/s][/s] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
Top