Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[Balesir]

[MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], I have to "spread the love" before XPing you again, but I agree 110% on "the player skill in use should be skill at playing D&D, not skill at basketweaving (or whatever)".

I differ on the "rules defined by the game world" bit, though. Saying "a fireball is a ball of fire - work out the implications for yourself" is great for more exploratory games, IMO, but not for challenge-based ones. Better would be to have actual sub-games for social and exploration challenges, and define Firball's effects in those, for me. Even better if all the "sub-games" were integrated into one system...

 

[TerraDave]

These columns are just sort of banal, and seem to work at the level of the obvious. I don't know if that reflects going back to first principles or something...but they are not thrilling.

I would think the practical issue is how does the DM adjudicate "out of the box" actions, whether or not there is a seemingly obvious or not so obvious solution in front of the characters that they ignore or don't figure out. And is there something useful that these experienced game designers can offer other then just saying "wing it".

Because if thats all they got, we don't really need them do we?

 

[LurkAway]

Wrong, like so many of his rulings... it got errated:

These columns are just sort of banal, and seem to work at the level of the obvious.

I looked up the darkfire thread and it came up in Feb 2010. 4E had already been played for a while. The very existence of this incident, and that it happened with Chris Perkins no less, reinforces for me that Monte has raised a very valid question -- what is the purpose of the rules, how are people using the rules in actual play, and should official game design (and WoTC employees) be encouraging out-of-bounds roleplaying.

 

[KidSnide]

Yeah, I don't disagree. I think the crux is where player skill is applied.

I'm not particularly interested in evaluating Frank's persuasive capacity or Julie's deductive prowess or ADD Roger's ability to pay attention to NPC names. If Frank is shy and Julie is a ditz and Roger zones in and out, I don't want to pass judgement on them or to require them to be different people in order to enjoy my game. I also don't want to limit my game: there should be no reason I can't run an enjoyable mystery adventure despite Julie's ditziness.

I agree that this is the crux. I think the essential difference is that the people I play with are really persuasive and have pretty decent deductive powers. Allowing them to replace those player abilities with character abilities would totally ruin the fun. Persuading NPCs with role-playing (with a nod to differences in diplomacy) and puzzling out mysteries (with the higher information characters getting more clues) is part of why we play. It's why no-combat sessions outnumber combat sessions by a significant majority.

That having been said, I agree with you that it's important for character abilities to be there as a replacement to player abilities that aren't fun for those players. My players don't really enjoy tracking names. So, when an important NPC was mentioned in a letter with a matronymic instead of a patronymic, I pointed it out. (Their out-of-game chances of recognizing a female arabic name over a male arabic name were low, even though their character's would recognize it in a second. I think I would have more fun if my players could pick this up, but I want my game to be fun for the players I have.)

But this is why I disagree with the "always" proposition. I'm not saying it's wrong for your game (you know that best), but that kind of design would seriously damage mine.

-KS

 

[LurkAway]

I differ on the "rules defined by the game world" bit, though. Saying "a fireball is a ball of fire - work out the implications for yourself" is great for more exploratory games, IMO, but not for challenge-based ones. Better would be to have actual sub-games for social and exploration challenges, and define Firball's effects in those, for me. Even better if all the "sub-games" were integrated into one system...

I think all those points and the out-of-bounds article tie in to a lot of other debates about what roleplaying is:
- codifying of PC actions/powers ("boardgame-y")
- insulating players against bad choices vs broken mechanics (game balance, everyone "the same", etc.)
- immersion vs metagame-y
- Mother May I vs System May I
- theoretical 5E modular for different playstyles

I am quite sure now that this dichotomy (however labelled) represents the main split in the D&D fanbase.

I think a modular 5E should have a base/core version, and an advanced version. The core version focuses on balanced challenged-based play. The advanced version gives more guidance to immersion/exploratory/out-of-bounds roleplaying. The advanced version isn't advanced in the sense of being better, but advanced in the sense that roleplaying can spill out beyond the scope of the rules, needs a good DM, etc.

 

[TerraDave]

I looked up the darkfire thread and it came up in Feb 2010. 4E had already been played for a while. The very existence of this incident, and that it happened with Chris Perkins no less, reinforces for me that Monte has raised a very valid question -- what is the purpose of the rules, how are people using the rules in actual play, and should official game design (and WoTC employees) be encouraging out-of-bounds roleplaying.

But this stuff happens all the time...and Chris Perkins, as far as I can tell did not make a mistake, he made a ruling.

There is no there there. And more importantly, there is very little practical advice or incite in these columns any more.

 

[LurkAway]

But this stuff happens all the time...and Chris Perkins, as far as I can tell did not make a mistake, he made a ruling.

He made a ruling that a lot of people disagreed with it as per that Enworld thread. If it happens all the time, implies it's not a niche issue. A widespread controversial debatable topic like that is always worth discussion IMO, why not?

 

[TerraDave]

Seriously? There may be some people with too much time on their hands here, there is absolutely no controversy. He made a ruling completely consistent with current rules.

But yes, its widespread, so much so that their was very little new or interesting in the column.

 

[LurkAway]

Seriously? There may be some people with too much time on their hands here, there is absolutely no controversy. He made a ruling completely consistent with current rules.

But yes, its widespread, so much so that their was very little new or interesting in the column.

Then I guess that a banal/trivial/stale/uninteresting article can still generate 159+ comments on the WoTC webpage and 3 pages of comments on this thread (and related Enworld threads) and one person taking the time to voice that it's banal and another person with too much time to voice that it isn't

 

[Incenjucar]

Then I guess that a banal/trivial/stale/uninteresting article can still generate 159+ comments on the WoTC webpage and 3 pages of comments on this thread (and related Enworld threads) and one person taking the time to voice that it's banal and another person with too much time to voice that it isn't

See: The Success of Reality TV