Legends and Lore: Out of Bounds

[Balesir]

I respectfully disagree when people say that the only skill that should be considered to play D&D is to know the system and his own character sheet.

Out of the box ideas are always welcome on my table. Creative parties are always better rewarded on my games.

In fact, we used to play a lot of games using no sheet, no books. The things your character could do were the things "you" could do. Dices were used only when some action was in doubt (has the door broken or not?).

And it was a hell of a fun.

Of course it can be fun, and of course there is a place for such play in the "broad church" of "roleplaying gaming". Playing in a world rather than a ruleset is a style of play I really enjoy from time to time.

But I would question whether such play is "playing D&D". You are not using the rules of D&D - you are using a selection of other rules that you are inventing on the spot to suit the world situation you are imagining. There is certainly nothing wrong with this, but I don't consider it to be the same thing as "playing D&D", which is done using the rules of D&D. I do, on the other hand, considr it to be "roleplaying gaming".

I realise some people think of "playing D&D" and "playing a roleplaying game" as synonymous - I can tolerate that view, but since it removes a large chunk of what "playing D&D" means (without replacing it with a useful alternative) I much prefer to keep to my own definitions.

On top of this, I think that having a complete set of rules in any RPG is preferable to having only a partial set. Having a set that explicitly calls out player abilities in some sort of semi-related sub-game would count, but would not fit well with the ethos of D&D as I view it.

More clearly stated, perhaps, I am happy with a game like Hârn, where the world is deeply developed and described, having rules that amount to "use game world logic to resolve in-game actions", but for more world-generic and challenge-focussed systems such as D&D I want the rules to be game rules, not vague injunctions to make stuff up as seems appropriate.

 

[thewok]

As with anything in campaign design and running, you don't want too many of these cases to exist. That gets frustrating for players. But any game that won't incorporate them because every challenge needs to be solvable by the PCs and what they have now isn't a game I want to play.

I don't think that anyone's saying that every obstacle has to be solved right then and there with stuff from the character sheet. That's ludicrous. The expectation, though, is for there to be some way to get past that obstacle at some point, using the character's abilities rather than the player's.

I mean, I can set up an encounter that is unwinnable by a five-person party. And, in fact, I have done this for my current group, though they don't know it yet. In such a case, the proper course of action is to run away. That is an option for the character, and any adventurer should be of high enough intelligence to know when a fight is unwinnable, and can then decide whether or not retreat is worth any possible hit to personal honor or public image.

In such a case, the obstacle is there. Maybe it's a level 10 dragon, and the group is only level 2. Maybe Imix is threatening creation itself, and the group needs to defeat him, and they're level 10. Retreat is fine. Some obstacles can't be solved right away, but they can be solved sometime. And when the group is level 30, they can assault Imix's stronghold in the Elemental Chaos, or they can go back to the dragon at level 10 and kill her to take her stuff. Or maybe they'll even sweet-talk the dragon at level 2 into doing or giving whatever the group requires of her.

But if I set up a poetry contest as an obstacle, I'm not going to allow the 10-charisma, 8-int Fighter any bonuses, even if he's played by John Keats or Maya Angelou. What I will do, however, is let the 20-charisma, 16-intelligence bard, played by someone who hates poetry gain a bonus (+2 only, though) if he attempts to write something approximating iambic pentameter. Now, if the poet player wants to help, then he might be able to act as a ghostwriter, but the impact of the poem would come down to the performance of the speaker, which is indicated by a die roll modified by a character skill/ability modifier.

Now, if before the game the Fighter's player came to me and said that the Fighter had formal training in literature as part of his Fighter training, then I'd probably allow him to assist the bard with an Aid Another roll for the composition of the piece.

You'll note that "Poetry Composition" is not a skill on the character sheet. But I will use things like Int, Cha and Insight checks to approximate the actions necessary.

Maybe the group has no naturally poetic character. Maybe they need to steal a poet's work (Thievery), and maybe they need to find a magic item that can enthrall an entire crowd (Arcana/Religion/etc.). Then they can compete in this contest.

Or maybe the group will come up with a way to bypass the contest entirely and find some other way of gaining the artifact they need. Even this alternate way will come about as a result of the characters' abilities and not the players'.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

...Even this alternate way will come about as a result of the characters' abilities and not the players'.

I think you make some interesting points. I was listening to the CH podcast with Quinn Murphy on skill challenges and one thing they identified was the tendency for players to push all their character's efforts through their maxed out skills and abilities (and thus really making SC's quite one dimensional). By focusing too fully on character abilities, I think this can happen too easily. They have several recommendations from turning the character sheet over during SC's to putting in incentives for characters to use non-maxed out skills that I think were quite interesting.

My point is that even when focusing on character abilities, it is difficult to isolate player influence.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[LurkAway]

But does Monte envisage the players having authority over the mechanical implementation of their ideas? I'm not sure, but I don't think so.

I agree. The players just need to know that if they roleplay out-of-bounds, that everything (DM and game system and published adventure) allows them to be rewarded for their efforts. You don't think out-of-bounds in a boardgame or videogame because you know the game won't dance to your creativity and only accepts specific types of inputs. I don't think Monte would have anything to criticize about your 4e game in that sense. (For better or worse, thewok's example of awarding no bonus or +2 bonus for a poetry contest after the player has roleplayed beautiful poetry recital is an example for me of a playstyle that does not particularily reward out-of-bounds roleplaying).

 

[LurkAway]

But if I set up a poetry contest as an obstacle, I'm not going to allow the 10-charisma, 8-int Fighter any bonuses, even if he's played by John Keats or Maya Angelou. What I will do, however, is let the 20-charisma, 16-intelligence bard, played by someone who hates poetry gain a bonus (+2 only, though) if he attempts to write something approximating iambic pentameter.

If I was swinging with the spirit of Monte's article (and I think I am), I would say that from an "out-of-bounds" perspective, whose to say that the rules were designed to decree and enforce that average Cha/Int = non-poetic, and high Cha/Int = poetic? If hit points are abstract, and ability scores are somewhat arbitrary (ie., each ability score is a almagam of different qualities, Int mod to Reflex, etc.) then why can't poetry roleplaying transcend ability score modifiers? Also, why is it so important that the abstracted non-poetry-specific ability score rules override the spirit of roleplaying? In a world of the fantastic, does verisimilitude preclude the possibility of a poetic dunce (perhaps a touch of fey in him or the soul of an ancient poet)? Does it really ruin the game for everyone if beautiful poetry recital by the player wins an automatic success in-game?

 

[pemerton]

YeahI think there's only a few posters at ENW who take a 'most players/DMs suck' view - Hussar on DMs and Kzach on players are the two that have made a lasting impression on me.

I've certainly had some GMs that suck. Including some who are fine players. And some whose games I've nevertheless enjoyed (eg because the players are sufficiently fun that it overrides the GM's suckitude).

And I've GMed for players I don't really like.

But I think [MENTION=54877]Crazy Jerome[/MENTION] is right - a lot of this comes down to preferences of style. There are plenty of posters on this forum whose game I feel I probably wouldn't enjoy, but who equally seem to get a lot of enthusiastic responses from others. And I'm sure many people wouldn't enjoy playing with my group. Apart from anything else, we have some bad habits of mechanical over-analysis, inherited from years of Rolemaster play (you can't survive playing Rolemaster if you don't engage in mechanical over-analysis!).

 

[pemerton]

For better or worse, thewok's example of awarding no bonus or +2 bonus for a poetry contest after the player has roleplayed beautiful poetry recital is an example for me of a playstyle that does not particularily reward out-of-bounds roleplaying

Does it really ruin the game for everyone if beautiful poetry recital by the player wins an automatic success in-game?

My group has never really got into the "bonuses for eloquent roleplaying" thing, so I don't have the same strong response, but can see where you're coming from.

For me, it's more about the fiction. If the player composes and recites some beautiful poetry, than that's what has happened in the game. And if (for example) the audience are poetry lovers, that should give +2 to the (Diplomacy, Bluff, whatever) check. And if the check fails, we certainly know it wasn't because the poetry was bad! It must have been for some other reason.

On this approach, the out-of-bounds thinking doesn't ensure success, but it gives the players a degree of control over the content of the fiction, which (at least for some players, including - I think - mine) matters to them.

Even this alternate way will come about as a result of the characters' abilities and not the players'.

I think you make some interesting points. I was listening to the CH podcast with Quinn Murphy on skill challenges and one thing they identified was the tendency for players to push all their character's efforts through their maxed out skills and abilities (and thus really making SC's quite one dimensional). By focusing too fully on character abilities, I think this can happen too easily. They have several recommendations from turning the character sheet over during SC's to putting in incentives for characters to use non-maxed out skills that I think were quite interesting.

My point is that even when focusing on character abilities, it is difficult to isolate player influence.

I personally like this line of thought. The challenge to the players is not to find endruns around their PCs' abilities, but to use their PCs' abilities to manipulate the fiction in interesting and unexpected directions.

I've also found that this is the simple "cure" for skill challenge problems. Set up fictional consequences that the players will care about, and they'll engage the fiction in an appropriate way even if it's not mechanically optimal. In my game one PC is trained in Bluff but not Diplomacy, and another vice versa. But sometimes the player of the first uses Diplomacy rather than lying because he doesn't want the consequences, in the fiction, of lying. And sometimes the player of the second lies rather than uses Diplomacy because he doesn't want the consequences, in the fiction, of being nice and/or telling the truth.

In my opinion the Burning Wheel Adventure Burner has a good discussion of the importance of the GM pushing the fiction hard in this way - obliging the players to engage (even if their PCs aren't that good at it) or suffer the (fictional) consequences. This is one occasion where the GM can't afford to say yes and let the players themselves decide the paremeters of the situations their PCs are confronting - because the game will just collapse into mush. The GM has to stick to his/her guns - once the situation is framed, if the players want to change it they have to change the fiction in the sorts of ways thewok talks about (or using knowledge skills in the style of Burning Wheel "wises", or however else is acceptable among the participants at the table).

 

[LurkAway]

For me, it's more about the fiction. If the player composes and recites some beautiful poetry, than that's what has happened in the game. And if (for example) the audience are poetry lovers, that should give +2 to the (Diplomacy, Bluff, whatever) check. And if the check fails, we certainly know it wasn't because the poetry was bad! It must have been for some other reason.]

Thewok's example was a poetry contest, so I assume the judges are poetry lovers. You wrote that if the player "composes and recites some beautiful poetry, than that's what has happened in the game". So now in the fiction, we have an actual beautiful piece of poetry produced by the PC. There's now a face-off against the quality of the poetry of the NPC. You can roll a random die to see whose is better, or the DM can decide that the NPC's poetry is inferior (and whose to say one way or another?). It's not that one way is wrong or right. It's just that one way is in-bounds and the other is out-of-bounds. Part of that, I think, is reliance (perhaps over-reliance) on die rolls and application of the rules *all the time*. In this case, I would probably just give the player an automatic success or a big modifier. Because it's a game, and I feel it inspires the player to roleplay more. A dinky +2 bonus just isn't enough motivation for everyone.

 

[S'mon]

I agree. The players just need to know that if they roleplay out-of-bounds, that everything (DM and game system and published adventure) allows them to be rewarded for their efforts. You don't think out-of-bounds in a boardgame or videogame because you know the game won't dance to your creativity and only accepts specific types of inputs. I don't think Monte would have anything to criticize about your 4e game in that sense. (For better or worse, thewok's example of awarding no bonus or +2 bonus for a poetry contest after the player has roleplayed beautiful poetry recital is an example for me of a playstyle that does not particularily reward out-of-bounds roleplaying).

Given that there's not even a poetry skill in the game, it seems particularly bad form to be reducing the poetry contest to a die roll when the player is happy to play it out in-character!

My approach here would be to let the player decide whether they wanted to play it out. If they did, and produced great stuff, it would be inappropriate to make a 'how good is your poetry' roll; but there might be a case for making 'what is the impact of your poetry' check, eg Diplomacy or Bluff.

If they didn't want to play it out, I'd allow skill checks to determine how good the poetry was. Insight would be an obvious skill, then Diplomacy or Bluff too.

 

[S'mon]

But if I set up a poetry contest as an obstacle, I'm not going to allow the 10-charisma, 8-int Fighter any bonuses, even if he's played by John Keats or Maya Angelou.

Wouldn't the game be more fun if you let Keats/Angelou come up with impromptu poetry at the table, and that had an impact on the game?

A second question - what if the Fighter player invested in his PC having skill training in Insight, Diplomacy or Bluff? Would that count for anything? How about Intimidate training for a war-chant or similar?