Learning from GMs at GenCon - Respond to Roleplaying

[Ariosto]

So when my roleplayers describe in exquisite detail how they're searching a hidden altar for secret panels, I'll give them a Perception check; I'll also give the identical check for my combat-oriented players who say simply that they're searching the hidden altar.

Does "searching the hidden altar" give a Perception check for finding something behind a tapestry at the opposite end of the chapel from the hidden altar? Or does that require "Magic Language"?

A chance of accidentally noticing something is fine. However, I do not see the appeal of making PLAN A reliance on random accidents.

For damned sure, I don't want the DM's assumptions and dice rolls to dictate that I stick my head in the Green Devil's Mouth!

I also don't want to give anyone an undue advantage simply because they give me a more detail-oriented description of their actions.

It's up to you what you choose to consider "undue". If you give the benefit of a maneuver to flank a particular foe and employment of a particular power to someone who just says "I attack", then that's your prerogative in your game.

4e has copious amounts of Magic Language. It just happens to be (a) dull and (b) thoroughly subject to DM interpretation. What is the DC? That's up to the DM. What is the result? That's up to the DM. What in the world does "searching the hidden altar" mean? That's up to the DM.

That's where the investment in building up a mythology about the "bad old days" has got your particular game culture. You make the DM the biggest bogey man of all, but see who now calls all the shots. It is only player inputs that you have cut out of the loop! Silly me, I thought this was supposed to be a game for us players to play.

This is, nonetheless, a player initiative. It is not (AFAIK) written into the 4e rules. The 4e rules just happen to be rather in sympathy, and WotC's rules sets have from the start included a "build" sub-game with its own investments and interests.

A certain player culture leads the way, and WotC follows (while trying also to please some other player cultures).

Keep going down that road, and the only acceptable game will be one that comes locked and sealed from the factory. We have had those for some time: computer games!

 

[Kingreaper]

Does "searching the hidden altar" give a Perception check for finding something behind a tapestry at the opposite end of the chapel from the hidden altar? Or does that require "Magic Language"?

"Magic language" is the difference between "I search the room" and "I search the room, looking... behind the altar, on top of the altar, under the altar.... behind the tapestry.... under the elephant"

It is NOT the difference between "I search the altar" and "I search the room". That's simply a wilful misinterpretation of the concept.

If someone says they're searching a room, the "magic language" approach is to require them to state which bits they search and how. The reasonable approach is to assume they search it competently*; possibly inquiring "Quickly, normally, or thoroughly?" and giving different responses (and differing time-frames) for each.

If someone says they're searching an altar, then they're searching the altar specifically. Whether because they don't care about the rest of the room, or don't want to waste time on it, they're not searching the room.

*or as competently as their character would anyway; which is what rolls are for.

 

[Ariosto]

"Magic language" is the difference between "I search the room" and "I search the room, looking... behind the altar, on top of the altar, under the altar.... behind the tapestry.... under the elephant"

It is NOT the difference between "I search the altar" and "I search the room". That's simply a wilful misinterpretation of the concept.

Erm... no. Without having seen the Authoritative Official Definition of Magic Language in the first place, I could hardly willfully misinterpret it!

Now, what I make of this is that you take "I search X" to mean a sweeping commitment to searching every thing within X that could be searched, by whatever methods you the GM consider "competent".

I do not think that unreasonable. I also do not think it unreasonable for people to take a different approach.

For instance, the Tomb of Horrors sorted in one move would be absurd. Even "I search the room" would be about as silly as saying "I get out of check" instead of a proper move in Chess. The game is in choosing moves skillfully.

 

[pemerton]

4e has copious amounts of Magic Language. It just happens to be (a) dull and (b) thoroughly subject to DM interpretation. What is the DC? That's up to the DM. What is the result? That's up to the DM. What in the world does "searching the hidden altar" mean? That's up to the DM.

This is pretty strong stuff, and I'm not sure at all that I agree with it. After all, there's a rules framework that helps set the DCs and determine the outcome of skill checks.

 

[Kingreaper]

Erm... no. Without having seen the Authoritative Official Definition of Magic Language in the first place, I could hardly willfully misinterpret it!

You were responding to Imaginary Number, who made clear what zhe meant by Magic Language: The requirement of some DMs to describe the precise sequence of actions every single time, as though the PC can't be any more competent than the player.

Using a completely different meaning, in order to make zher point look silly, is a clear case of misinterpretation.

For instance, the Tomb of Horrors sorted in one move would be absurd. Even "I search the room" would be about as silly as saying "I get out of check" instead of a proper move in Chess. The game is in choosing moves skillfully.

In Tomb of Horrors I do believe that searching a room in a competent manner will often result in triggering a death-trap.

But then, it's tomb of horrors, talking too loudly could trigger a death-trap.

 

[Herschel]

The system only matters if one lacks the improvisation or imagination skills to role play without "extra" tools a certain system contains. In other words, role playing is a state of mind and a way of playing rather than a rule/system set.

For example, in 3E there were rules for seemingly EVERYTHING. For some that was great, for others needlessly intrusive.

In 4E, powers in the books come with flavor text/possible descriptions and a basic adjudication structure for non-combat encounters. For some, the powers descriptions are awesome, for others it goes against what they imagine them to be.

Both are simply tools or props used to varying degrees by different people and neither is "better" at encouraging role playing on a macro scale.

Mayeb it's better described as role playing is what happens around the dice rolls.

 

[Necronomitron]

To the overall idea that you don't need rules to roleplay:

I can't disagree with that at all. But I've found the RP in games that support and incentivize it to be much more fulfilling than in games that don't. 3.5 and 4E don't get in your way if you want to RP, but they certainly don't go out of their way to facilitate it (I've never played older editions of D&D, I can't speak to them). They are definitely solid game engines, but I see most of the character-based gaming innovation done in other games.

Edit: and it dawns on me that although I created this account almost two years ago, this is my first post, lol.

 

[Ariosto]

You were responding to Imaginary Number, who made clear what zhe meant by Magic Language

Probably your own post also seemed clear to you, but it was a bit of work for me to untangle.

"It is not the difference between 'I search the altar' and 'I search the room'" means on the face of it just the opposite of what I eventually worked out! That difference was THE KEY. The preceding paragraph looked at first just like nonsense.

Drawing so much attention to specifically searching the altar, etc., was just confusing.

Anyhow, it is irrelevant to the Wushu method. It ought with that to be par for the course to say as many things as give the maximum bonus -- like choosing as many feats, powers or skill bonuses as one is allowed!

 

[TarionzCousin]

How about the one who says, "I attack. I got a 15." Is he roleplaying as much as the other two?

He's roleplaying as much as the one who says "I'll use Diplomacy on him. I got a 22."

No, the Diplomacy person is roleplaying more: 22>15.

Ariosto does a great job of explaining my thoughts on this whole matter. (Can someone rep him for me?)

Covered.



When I DM, I give a standard +1 to any d20 roll if the player "entertainingly" describes what his/her character is doing. It's not required and I had a player in a long-term campaign who almost never said more than "I attack. I got a 13. If I hit I do 11 damage."

But the rest of the group enjoyed hearing the thief say "I carefully crouch down, breathing as quietly as possible through my nose with my mouth open. With my face as close to the floor as possible, I slowly--oh. so. slowly--extend my mirror-on-a-stick to see around the corner. (Rolls Perception). What do my fine elven eyes see?"

In certain circumstances (e.g., if everybody laughs out loud at the description) I'll give a +2. I've even given an automatic success a few times for extraordinary descriptions.

Yes, I consider this a mechanical reward for "role-playing."

 

[Hella_Tellah]

Anyhow, it is irrelevant to the Wushu method. It ought with that to be par for the course to say as many things as give the maximum bonus -- like choosing as many feats, powers or skill bonuses as one is allowed!

Yup, that's the whole point of the system. Wushu is a game about over-the-top kung fu action, so the more overwrought and outlandish your description, the better you do. The game encourages you to describe your actions in as florid and entertaining a language as possible, and that fits with the theme of the game. It's certainly not a prescription to be applied to every game, but it accomplishes what Wushu sets out to do.