(which seems to be any D&D player who doesn't prefer 4e)
The experience the OP related to begin with wasn't in D&D - 'Burning Wheel' or something. If you're sensing a vibe it's probably indie v D&D - and it may well be coming from both sides of the conversation. Though, I guess if you had a spectrum of indie-to-D&D it might look something like:
MLwM>D/V>DA>BW>13A><B/X<4e<5e<2e<3.x/PF<1e<0e.
A few things. First, sometimes personality trumps skill challenges and player desires. Scrooge isn't going to loan a PC 10,000 gold pieces, so a social challenge to see if he "parries" the request fails from the get go. It should be disallowed.
It would be like throwing a dart at an enemy behind a stone wall, it's simply not going to work w/o line of effect.
... but now we are getting into the necessity of building a dedicated rules structure (to create a scarce resource, determine how one gains it, and regulate how and when it can be used) for narrative control, which at that point I think we have to ask... will this actively enhance the play experience for these players to a great enough extent that adding and having to learn these extra rules is desirable?
There needn't be any such a necessity: if the game already has resource-driven rules, for instance, they can simply be adapted.
We also have to consider that there is a subset of players, for whatever reason who just don't want to author the narrative.
They could decline to accumulate said resources - or to use them that way if they're an existing system being adapted to that purpose.
Many in this thread are assuming that this type of play style is inherently something that we should strive to incorporate or move our games towards... but why is that? Why are we assuming it's inherent positive quality or effect on our games? When honestly I've yet to see anything in this thread that convinces me it's objectively a better way.
'Better' is clearly subjective, but it's not like using one technique precludes others, so you don't need to decide which is better and use it exclusively. Not that I see that being acknowledged, either.
I am not a huge fan of Robin Laws' player type analysis. The intent of knowing who you are playing with and knowing what they want out of the game is mostly benign. However, in my experience, it fails to adequately capture the diversity of play experiences. I find that what motivates a player in any given moment is often a moving target. Our overall tendencies will also change over time. Furthermore it presumes conflict between things that do not have to conflict in any way.
Very true. And the same thing happens with games, styles, and techniques. The classifications aren't inherently invalid, but if treated as absolutes or as antithetical, become problematic.
The right set of techniques and mechanics can do a lot to alleviate these conflicts.
Since a given player's 'type' can actually shift emphasis with the situation or morph over time, a flexible enough system to smoothly accommodate multiple 'types' or styles or agendas or whatever set of boxes is under discussion, can be a plus even if there's not a conflict at the table, initially, or even if there is (say the table's 'type' shifts in step, or it's a single-player game, for instance).
[MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] is correct about this: they didn't themselves want to reveal or unmask the traitor - but, as events unfolded, they were able to goad him into unmasking himself.
It seems like the goal or 'stakes' shifted, then?
Then what's the point of them? And how do you resolve combat, if the GM is free at any time to ignore the intiative, to hit and damage dice? (On the grounds that the dice shouldn't force the GM into anything specific.)
It can certainly be done, the GM would base his judgement on the characters and the actions the players chose for them - not formal mechanical actions like "I attack" but more descriptive ones ("I swing my ax, butally, full-force," "I slide my rapier under his guard," etc), and it would depend upon the GM's judgement, the player's knowledge of the sort of combat being resolved relative to the GM's perception of what is 'correct' knowledge of that topic, the player's creativity, his ability to declare actions in a way that encourages the GM to rule in his favor, etc.
Personally, I find it very hard to see how the ficiton is going to include that sort of thing if the GM is not bound by the dice and is always free to narrate NPCs as s/he thinks is rational for them. Whey, then, would they ever make errors or act out of passion?
Because it fits the NPC in question or the flow of the story at that point?
